Interpersonal Violence

Abusive relationships are world-wide. 1 in 3 women have been victim to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. To put this in to perspective; approximately 1 woman is battered every 15-18 seconds and 1 woman is raped every 19 seconds. These numbers are astonishing, especially to people in my age group (college students), as we think things like this are not going on around us, but the truth is that we are the most likely to experience abuse. I am going to expose numerous myths and beliefs in todays, deeper, darker blog.

It is a common belief that interpersonal violence is rare and new. However, compared to 50 years ago, it may seem like abuse rates have raised, but this is misleading. It is now a law to report to the authorities when you think there is reason to believe you know someone is a victim of domestic violence. This includes school teachers who think children are being abused at home, and first in charge at the workplace when they believe a woman (or man) who works for them is a victim. With more reports like this in the last half-century, obviously statistics will look like there is more violence now than ever, but in reality there is the same amount of violence, but with more awareness.

People often hang on to the perception that child abuse is confined to ‘sick’ people. Realistically only 10% of child abusers are mentally unstable. As a society we distance ourselves from abuse because we are not sick, and most of the people we know are not sick. But as I said above, we are the most likely candidates for abusive relationships.

Contrary to popular belief, abusive relationships are not confined to lower socioeconomic classes. It is more prevalent in the lower classes, but it is still very existent in the upper class. Violence is a primary reason for divorce 40% of the time in low class relationships and 25% of the time in upper class relationships. People who live in upper class situations often live in houses that are very separate from their neighbors, thus they cannot be heard when having a domestic dispute and it is not reported. Conversely, people in lower class situations often live in apartments close to one another, where any loud or abusive behavior is heard, witnessed, and reported.

It is frequently believed that abuse cannot be predicted. This is not true; there are several traits that most abusers share. People who abuse tend to be immature, depressed, have a family with a closed structure (isolated from the community), live in highly stressful situations with low tolerance, have low self esteem, have been brought up in domestic violence situations, often unemployed (cannot get job/lost job), unmarried to whom they abuse, a different religion, and it is usually the mother who is more likely to abuse the child. The last fact here is interesting because most people would assume otherwise. The mother is usually the abuser because the baby reminds them of a hated male in their life (their father/baby’s father), or simply because they are around the child more in stressful situations due to the male being at work or otherwise. People often think that love and violence do not co-exist, but these women most of the time do love their babies. Love and violence actually co-exist tremendously.

“Why doesn’t he/she just leave the relationship?” Because it is not as easy to believe as people think. Victims are often unable to leave because of financial reasons, they have been isolated from family and friends by their abuser, they are made to feel like no-one else wants them by their abusers, and they often fear that they will be killed if they leave their abusers.

Media is a common perpetrator for making us believe that drugs and alcohol cause abuse. Drugs and alcohol are involved in a certain percentage of abuses, but it is not the sole cause. I don’t just go around slapping women every time I drink, and I hope that you don’t either. People who abuse their partners while under the influence are often also influenced by other factors.

If you are a victim of abuse and you don’t feel like you have anyone to talk to, you do.

888-743-5754

You do not deserve to be a victim. And if you are, it does not have to go on. Make the call and get all the support you can.

The Break Up

            Relationship termination is always interesting, how do we let our partner go painlessly with no hard feelings? Whether you have heard them on television, in movies, or in real life – break up lines can be just as corny and cliché as pick-up lines: “It’s not you, it’s me.” “Let’s just be friends.” “I think we should see other people.” “We need a break.” Do these sound familiar to you? If you have ever experienced any of these first-hand, you will know that the person initiating the break up is not as slick as he/she thinks. Even we can ‘still be friends,’ that is never the case. Now I’m going to tell you a little something about break-ups.

            Regardless of demographics, most relationships tend to break up in similar ways. Often the reason we give for a break up is not the actual reason we are breaking up with that person. This may be because we are trying to preserve their positive face. 66% of heterosexual relationships are ended by the female, and these break ups are more likely to be based on situational factors rather than personal factors. Break ups do not only happen in romantic relationships, but in friendships too. Atrophy (diminished use of friendship) is the most common cause of relational termination in friendships. I remember leaving elementary school to go to high school. I met so many new people and so did my best friends. I am still friends with my friends from elementary school, but I do not talk to them anywhere near as much as I talk to my high school friends, and conversational content is most often superficial. SO many people come into college in a relationship, and about half of these peoples’ partners’ do not go to the same school.  Sadly, 46% of these relationships are terminated in the first year. In gay and lesbian relationships, absence is the leading cause in break ups.

            The primary cause of relationship termination is poor communication. This can mean several things: excessive communication, infrequent communication, negative communication, low quality communication, and inequitable communication. Excessive obviously translates into constant communication. Some people, myself included, do not want to be texting, giving constant updates of where I am, why I’m there, what I’m doing, who I’m with, and how I got there. Why do you think I don’t have a Twitter account?.. Yet… Infrequent communication is obviously a lack of communication – “We never talk, so why bother with this relationship?” Negative communication is extremely energy draining. We have all experienced that person who hates absolutely everything. It’s boring inside, but they don’t want to go outside because it’s too hot. They hate cooking, but eating out is too expensive. There are no good movies showing, but they’re over all the DVD’s we own – please tell me you hate me too because WE’RE DONE! Low quality communication is when it takes effort just to continue with small talk even though you are past that point in your relationship. Inequitable communication is when one person is getting more power in conversations, saying more, disregarding what you say, and forcing you to listen at what may be an inopportune time for you – you can do this if you want, but I probably won’t be listening and you’ll terminate the relationship on account of that, saving me the trouble.

            Although we seem to enjoy making up reasons for break ups, here are the legitimate top 5 reasons: we may be dissatisfied with our partner, disillusioned with the relationship, we may have difficulties with the other individuals characteristics, we may have problems with others in the relationship network (in-laws, friends), and we may not have the ability to deal with the strains imposed by external circumstances (losing jobs, injuries, moving house). When we make up excuses for break ups rather than just stating one of the above, we have made a decision to use an indirect strategy rather than a direct strategy. Indirect would be saying something like, “I really like you and maybe if we had met in a few more years this could have worked, but I have a lot on my plate right now.” Now that may be a complete lie, but the real reason might be so brutal that we had to soften it up (to save face) instead of taking the direct approach, “I hate your family, we’re done.” Direct vs. indirect is not the only tactic in breaking up. Break-ups can be unilateral (one person) or bilateral (mutual). Most break ups are unilateral and direct, but our friends like to tell us that “it was mutual,” while tears are still running down their cheeks and their words are fooling no one but themselves. This unilateral and indirect approach, however, is not as effective as desired, with only 22% of people knowing that they have been broken up with after an indirect break up. This classic video says it all.

            Brilliant.

Commitment

            So what is commitment? In communication it is a reliance or dedication to any given relationship. As I have stated in previous blogs, intimacy of relationships depend on attraction, identity needs, and history or environment. We all have countless relationships, but how committed are we to them?

            We have three choices: we can want to be committed, have to be committed, or ought to be committed. Obviously wanting to be committed is self explanatory. When you have to be committed, you are more or less put in a position of guilt, like when parents stay together for the sake of their children, but when they finally go off to college, the parents get a divorce. When you think you ought to be committed, it is usually because you think it is expected of you. Maybe your friends and family would be disappointed if you were not committed anymore.

            When we are committed, there are six main dimensions that measure the strength of our commitment, they are as follows. We may perceive a rewarding future with this relationship (can anybody say gold-digger?). We may identify with the relationship. We may perceive fewer attractive alternatives. We may share a mutual willingness to exert an effort for the relationship. We may have no issues with investing time in the relationship. And finally, we may accept responsibility for the relationship commitment.

            Obviously commitment is a dyadic process (involves two people). Each person in the relationship can impact the commitment level and commitment perception of the other in the relationship. Clearly commitment must be communicated; otherwise betrayal would be all too common in relationships. Who starts this communication? Speaking about romantic relationships in the college student demographic, I would assume that females would have to initiate a conversation about commitment. After discussing this with peers of both sexes I found out that my assumption was correct. Females are generally worried about their relational partners straying to competing females. Males are generally worried about how they will be able to stray to competing females if they commit! When commitment is communicated, the main concern is reciprocation – does the other commit back? Other than simply stating our commitment and having to worry about reciprocation, pseudo-reciprocation, or refutation; there are many other ways in which we can show our commitment. We can show affection, provide support, maintain integrity (respect the relationship), share companionship, make a noticeable effort to communicate, share respect, create relational futures (anniversaries etc.), create a positive relationship atmosphere, and work together on relational problems.

            Now, personally I have a lot of platonic friendships with females, consequently I have encountered a recurring, distressing question, “How do I know he means it when he says he loves me?” *whiny voice* Well here is your answer ladies – and pay attention guys so you can learn to communicate your commitment as well as I do… We mean it if we communicate our commitment over and over, talk about future relationship rewards, make public statements of our commitment to the relationship (Facebook official), make permanent statements of our commitment (in writing), do things that show significant effort, or if we initiate the communication of our commitment just as often as we respond to it. Eventually you will become one of those disgusting couples who show public displays of affection, talk like babies to one another, and have cute (repulsive) nicknames for each other.

            Once you are in a committed relationship, you are able to milk it for all its worth! This is because commitment impacts persuasion! When we are in a committed relationship there are six things that are most common to try to persuade about; partner’s health advice, partner’s lifestyle advice, change in relationship, change in partner’s political stance, activity sharing, and help. As commitment increases, persuasion style changes from asking → demanding → threatening, and consequently, the more committed we become, the more pressure we feel to accommodate our partners requests.

            Everything to do with commitment is fairly simple and self explanatory, but something that we do not think about often, which is why I thought it would be interesting to share. Some aspects of commitment seem shallow (Social Exchangesque) but I’m going to assume that MOST people want to be committed rather than have, or ought to!

The Onion Metaphor

Remembering that when communication scholars talk about intimacy it is not always sexual, we begin to ask ourselves, “what does intimacy mean?” In any relationship we have, be it work, friendly, sexual, or otherwise, we have a certain level of intimacy. The only people we have a ‘0’ intimacy level with are ‘perfect strangers.’ As trust, disclosure, and dependency increase, so does our intimacy level.

Self disclosure is a purposeful process in which individuals reveal information about themselves. How does this phenomenon actually work though? Does self disclosure come when trust has been established in the relationship? Or does self disclosure build trust? When people self disclose to one another, they tend to like each other more, as long as it is gradual disclosure that reflects their level of closeness, otherwise the relationship can become uncomfortable. And when people like each other, they tend to disclose more. However, if the same information is shared with many people, disclosure loses its power and is less likely to lead to liking. If I told someone about my deepest fears, in hopes that they would reciprocate and tell me theirs, I would be disappointed and probably like them less if the disclosure was not reciprocated.

Self disclosure can be used as a strategy in Social Penetration Theory (or the onion metaphor). The onion metaphor is used to describe social penetration. Our outer layer is the ‘superficial’ layer, what people see; what we wear, how we walk, skin color etc. The next layer is the social layer, this is the layer that most people never get past, it starts with small talk and can get to deeper issues, but the core is where the ultimate disclosure occurs. The core is when in a relationship you feel like you can tell each other anything with no risk. Do you feel like you have a relationship like this with anyone? Don’t feel bad if you don’t, it is very rare to be on this level with anyone, even your life partner.



So how can we ‘penetrate’ or proceed from layer to layer? We have to do whatever we can to increase intimacy. That would include increasing depth, breadth, frequency, duration, and valence of all communication with our ‘subject’, or who we want to increase our intimacy with.

The first stage of relationship development is orientation. This is the social stage that involves revealing small parts of ourselves to others at low levels of depth and breadth. Most disclosures are positive in valence, with one exception: the stranger on the plane. We have all sat next to them, the overly chatty and DISCLOSIVE stranger that wants to tell you who they are flying to San Francisco to divorce and why. If you ARE this person…stop it.

The second stage of relationship development is exploratory affective exchange. This is where we start to see a little less of the superficial small talk, and a little more personality and true self comes out. Breadth and depth are generally increased during this stage, while potential new topics are also explored. This stage may occur on 2nd or 3rd dates, when we keep a positive valence as we are trying to maintain a ‘good impression’.

The next stage is affective exchange, where we are now close friends, or intimate partners, obviously comfortable with each other. Breadth and depth increase significantly in this stage, and we begin to see some negative valence.

The final stage of relationship development is open exchange, in which the people involved have reached complete ‘openness’ with each other. This means complete self disclosure, there is nothing that will remain unsaid, and there is no fear of negative reactions. As I stated above, complete full disclosure is very difficult to obtain and there is nothing wrong with your relationship if you are not on this level.

If you are in a relationship I suggest you read the rest of this blog very carefully, because I am going to tell you why people cheat on the relational partners with either sexual or emotional infidelity…or both. Sexual infidelity occurs when someone engages in sexual activity outside of their committed relationship. Emotional infidelity occurs when someone is emotionally attached to or ‘in love with’ a potential rival. Research argues that satisfaction levels are the leading cause of sexual infidelity, but there are of course other causes such as boredom, excitement, and revenge.

So how do you know if you’re being cheated on? You can find out from a third party or witness the infidelity yourself. Alternatively your partner could tell you either before, or after you ask them. Some cues to look out for are physical signs (they are all of a sudden so worried about how they look), changes in sexual behavior (where did you think they were learning all those new maneuvers?), and an increase or decrease in the amount of sex you are having with your partner. What about emotional infidelity you ask? Your partner will show a loss of love and communicate expressions of dissatisfaction. They will be reluctant to spend time with you. They will be reluctant to speak about other people (in fear that they might accidentally disclose how they feel about them). And they may have negative communication patterns reflecting guilt, anxiety, anger, and rejection.

Romantic jealousy is a reaction to REAL or IMAGINED threats. So just because you think you see a change in your partners behavior doesn’t make it so. When an individual worries that a rival could interfere with the existence or quality of their relationship, they will tend to think they see a lot of the above behaviors even when they don’t. Some communicative responses to jealousy may be; distributive communication, violent communication and violence towards objects, relationship threats, manipulation attempts, active distancing, and surveillance. They might all seem rational at the time, but in my mind they are all grounds for a break up – personally, I don’t want to be followed everywhere I go, especially because of accusations that may or may not be true.

What is Love?

I Love Lamp from John M on Vimeo.

            So what is love? This is an age old question that people seem to avoid answering. Are we just saving face because we are afraid of being wrong? Do we feel awkward talking about it? Or do we simply just not know the answer? Well, in communication, the word is thrown around by everyone, numerous times every day. People say they love people, and they say they love things (Just like Brick loves ‘lamp’ in the video above), so the first thing communication scholars have done is distinguished loving from liking. Loving and liking are related, but they are qualitatively different. Liking is based on affection, respect, and enjoyable interaction, whereas loving is based on attachment, motivation and a deeper level of caring.

            So… What is love!?!? There are several theories in communication which have their own definition of what love is. They all seem to overlap, so I guess if you take bits and pieces from each theory there is a rough definition of what love is.

            Lee’s theory of love is easy to compare to how we learn about colors. Just like we have primary colors (red, yellow, blue), we have primary [love] styles (Eros: physical love, Storge: companionate love, Ludus: playful love). And just like the primary colors mix to make secondary colors (green, purple, orange), the primary love styles mix to make secondary styles (Mania: obsessive love, Pragma: realistic love, Agape: altruistic love). I will describe both primary and secondary sorts of love, according to Lee.

            Eros is based on physical attraction. People in this sort of love are eager to develop intense, passionate relationships and once the passion dies they are likely to end the relationship. They experience emotional highs and lows, similar to a bi-polar disorder. When the passion is there they are at an enormous high, but when the passion is gone they are at an all-time low. They always desire physical contact; holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. and they experience high emotional distress when separated from their partner. They have a fast development of intimacy and connection, thus having high levels of self disclosure.

            Storge is based on security, task sharing, joint activity, and companionship. Storge is not so much based on excitement like Eros, but on stability and knowing what tomorrow brings. They experience more steady emotions as opposed to the emotional highs and lows of Eros. Storge lovers have a positive emotional connection and a high level of comfort around their significant other, but they do not communicate it. Their love is based on a mutual desire for the same goals.

            Ludus relationships are based on fun and playfulness. Often relationships are treated as casual and commitment is avoided. These are the type of people that love the chase, but when they get the girl/guy they become bored and end the relationship. Obviously, these people would place their goals and desires ahead of their relationships, disclose little to no information, and be slow to develop any sort of intimacy.

Barney Stinson Top 10 - The top video clips of the week are here

Now to the secondary styles. Mania is a demanding, dependent, and possessive type of love. They need a high level of control and self disclosure. They need to know what you’re doing, where you are, when you’re coming back, and god forbid you don’t text them back when they ask you any of these questions, the proverbial ‘poop will hit the fan’. In case you couldn’t tell from the earlier part of the Mania description, Mania lovers are highly obsessive and have a high need for contact with their partner. They also experience extreme highs and lows, based on their partner’s actions.

Agape lovers are unselfish, altruistic, and unconditional. They have an intense concern for the other in the relationship and will make personal sacrifices in order to satisfy them. They have high expectations for unconditional love, so if you think your partner is an Agape lover… get rid of them… just kidding, don’t disappoint them.

Pragma love is based on the degree to which the partner needs certain criteria. They are very aware of Social Exchange Theory when they are making decisions. Pragma lovers put intimacy and passion in the back seat to be careful with consideration and time in the relationship.

According to Sternberg’s Triangular Theory, love (and the type of love) is made up of three components; commitment (the decision to love and maintain), passion (psychological/physiological arousal), and intimacy (closeness/sharing/support). The presence or absence of one or more of these components determines the type of love that you are in. Here are the different types of love and their combinations of the above components:

• Non-love (none)
• Liking (intimacy)
• Infatuation (passion)
• Empty (commitment)
• Romantic (intimacy and passion)
• Fatuous (passion and intimacy)
• Companionate (commitment and intimacy)
• Consumate (all three)

Davis and Todd’s theory of love examines the differences between love and friendship. This theory assumes that love and friendship share many of the same characteristics, but love has more. Friendship is about enjoyment, acceptance, trust, respect, mutual assistance, confiding, understanding, and spontaneity. Love shares the above characteristics PLUS passion, fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire, caring, giving, and advocating.

The issue of intimacy is that whether we are motivated towards love or liking is partly determined by several needs, and as these needs are met, intimacy increases. The needs that need to be met are; affection, self-esteem, security, freedom, and equality. So basically no matter which theory you agree with most, love is always going to be a full time job… that stinks. Just kidding, if your loves style is compatible with your partners, you should have a very enjoyable relationship, but please don’t break up with your partner on account of my blog J

Communication Is No Accident

            We are taught communicative rules from the moment we begin to string together sentences. Cultures have different rituals and traditions, which give us communicative and social norms. We are taught to give eye contact, talk in turns, and not interrupt. Without simple rules like these, communication would be impossible. Communication rules can be either implicit or explicit. Implicit rules are implied or “unwritten” rules, whereas explicit rules have actually been stated between relational partners. These rules are expected in any relationship and it is our responsibility to follow them. If we behave the expected way, people will feel more comfortable around us, and we become more attractive to them. Conversely, if we do not follow these rules, we become weird, and people distance themselves from weird people.

            Along with rules comes politeness, which leads me to talk about politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson say that politeness is all about “face”. Face involves an awareness or concern concerning our self image or the self image of others. According to this theory, we have both a positive and negative face; however, this does not mean we have a good and a bad face. Positive face is our self image, or our belief about our self, how we value our self, and how we want to be viewed. Our negative face is our independence; can we do what we want, when we want, how we want? There are several assumptions that this theory is based on, they are as follows; (1) positive and negative face threats are a part of social interaction, (2) within interaction faces can be threatened or validated, and (3) we generally try to avoid threatening our own face or others sense of face in interactions. The video below shows how we might avoid threatening the face of others (skip to 3:20).

Free Video Hosting

            Have you ever heard of the expression “saving face”? Saving face is the notion of leaving your identity unharmed and maintaining a good self image. To save face we use strategies known as preventative facework’. A common type of preventative facework is disclaimers, where we make excuses for our actions ahead of time. Some types of disclaimers are; hedging, where we save face by starting with, “I might be wrong but. . .” because if we are wrong we do not look stupid. Sin licensing is recognizing that you are saying something politically incorrect but saying, “I shouldn’t say this but. . .” beforehand to save face. Cognitive disclaimers are when you use your cognitive ability as an excuse for what you have said/are going to say. There is also a type of preventative facework called verbal self-handicapping. This is when you might make a physical excuse to save face ahead of time. For example, if I tell everyone that I am having terrible knee problems before our season opener, I have an excuse for playing bad, but if I play well people will think I triumphed over the pain.

            Now, if we have damaged our face, we use “corrective facework strategies. The first of these strategies is avoidance, where if a situation has the potential to make you look bad, you will do anything to avoid that situation. We may use humor and turn our mistake into a joke. We may apologize for our actions. We may give our account, or make excuses for our actions. My personal favorite is physical remediation, where we adjust something physically as if that is the reason for our actions, for example, if we trip we might look at our shoes like there is something wrong with them. Finally there is aggression, where we just get so mad at the situation that it distracts from our mistakes and makes people feel sorry for us.

            Obviously face saving is not all there is to politeness theory. As I said earlier, we have communicative rules and rituals that society expects us to follow. We use all kinds of greetings so we are not thought of as impolite. Without greetings we will not communicate, thus rituals are culturally dependent. The most common form of greeting is the verbal salute, such as “Hey,” or any other variation. A more personal option is direct reference, where we call names. If we are in a really good mood and have a minute or two to spare, we might use personal enquiry, like “Hey Luke, how are you today?” We might also express our desire to continue the relationship with greetings like “It’s great to see you! It’s been too long!” We might apologize for not seeing them in so long, we might even refer to the situation, like the weather for instance. Finally, we might use compliments, jokes or even just non-verbals, such as a wave or a nod etc. Of course all of these greeting depends on your relationship with the other person, obviously professors or bosses will have to be addressed more formally.

            Relational openings are rituals that are created in which a desire to form a relationship is indicated. Usually these are directed towards romantic relationships, this is where we see pick up lines.

            If we are as successful as the Fresh Prince, our pick up lines may lead to small talk. We use small talk as a proving ground for new and established relationships, as it satisfies our inclusion needs. It is a safe procedure for telling about ourselves and learning about others, although it can become uncomfortable if too much information is disclosed. From small talk we can progress to more integrating and penetrating topics. The primary basis for small talk in initial interactions is uncertainty reduction, because if we are uncertain about someone, we are uncomfortable and they become unattractive, which leads back to rules and rituals and becoming familiar with our new and established relational partners.

            I have definitely used a number of these strategies to save my face, however, when people spit on my face I usually have something to say about it (see first video if you don’t understand the reference)!

Coming Together

            Have you ever consciously thought about the reason why we get into the relationships we get into? Well, other than our own personal qualities and the qualities of others, there are two things that drive us to talk to people; identity and attraction. Please keep in mind that in the field of interpersonal communication “attraction” is not only used in romantic relationships, but it is used as an adjective in the development of all relationships.

            Now first and foremost, our identity is socially defined. What this means is that how we see ourselves must be agreed upon by our peers or even society as a whole. For example, I would not be identified as an ‘emo’ because I do not fit the criteria that society has placed on the emo culture. However, if I wore black and white makeup, got a specific haircut that fits with the emo culture, and dressed in all black clothing with a glum facial expression; I would obviously view myself as an emo, and so would society.

            Our identities are also maintained through communication. People will start to identify us based on actual or imaginary conversations. For example, if I was to have a conversation with someone dressed very respectfully, I might expect them to speak with eloquence, however, if they begin to speak with a ton of slang and sound like they were raised by the streets, I would change my perception and identification of them. And on the imaginary side, if I think people say certain things about me relating to my identity, I may act to change what I think they are saying, or act to reinforce their idea of me.

            Identity is often confused with self-esteem and ego, but the truth is that these are both built off of our identity. Self-esteem is how we perceive ourselves, and ego is when we compare our perception of ourselves to our perception of others. Depending on what our identity is, or what we want it to be, can affect our self-esteem and ego, but our self-esteem and ego cannot affect our identity.

            Our identity gives us structure. It is impacted by feedback; we need confirmation by others to verify our identity. Our identities help us interpret the feedback we receive because we have general expectations of how some people will behave or communicate. Our identities also impact our self evaluation, our goals (how high we should reach, and our belief that we can reach that far), and our relational choices. Our identities will make us wonder if we are being treated they way we believe we deserve to be treated based on our identity. Similarly, we will ask ourselves if others look at us the way we look at ourselves. If somebody questions our identity, we may remove ourselves from that relationship, thus our identities are a key component in relational development.

            There are some concerns about identity perception. We have all met people who we consider ‘fake’, is this a mistake in how we read their identity, or are they being deceptive in an attempt to fit in to society? Our identity is dependent on the social interactions we have with others, but to what extent are we influenced by these interactions? We all have different groups of friends for a reason, and we don’t spend time with these groups at the same time for the very same reason. Our friendship groups have different characteristics, as an extreme example; you would not mix your book club friends with your sports team friends. Obviously one group is going to be more extraverted than the other and there would be some serious personality clashes. We form these groups to give us an option of who to spend time with based on our mood or maybe even changes (temporary or permanent) in our identity. We are attracted to different qualities in different social situations. We would obviously look for different qualities in co-workers, friends, partners, and hook-ups.

            We are attracted (not romantically) to everyone we share relationships with. There are different types of attraction for the earlier mentioned relationship types. These attraction types consist of; physical, social, task, sexual, relational, and fatal. With these attractions come expectations. We assume some type of reward from most relationships, based on subjective requirements within the relationship. Our expectations can be violated in both a positive and a negative manner. For example, if we have a professor who we expect to be a jerk, but they end up being really nice and informative, our expectations have been violated in a positive way. However, if we have the opposite expectation and they end up being a terrible professor with a bad attitude, our expectations have been violated in a negative way. Nevertheless, if we know we have to stay in that class for the whole semester, we will tolerate the bad professor and try to find positive traits about them because we feel like we have to.

            Interactive and environmental qualities have a significant effect on our relational choices. Interactive qualities include similarity and complimentary behaviors. The “birds of a feather. . .” saying implies that we want to be around people similar to ourselves. We search for communicative and attitudinal similarity, physical similarity (research says we date people a similar ‘hotness’ to ourselves), and implicit egotism (share a birthday, went to the same school etc.). “Opposites attract” is of course the opposite of “birds of a feather. . .” As a final point on interactive qualities, the relational length plays a major role in attractiveness. The more time we invest in a person, the more attractive they become. The most common of the environmental qualities are networks and distance. If our social networks approve of our newfound relationships, we will most probably proceed with them. And finally, distance/proximity affects frequency of contact, and frequency of contact has the power to increase or decrease attraction.

            So what is your identity? Does it match the identities of those who you are close with? Do you show different parts of your identity around different friends or different sexes? How often have you made a comment or observation when you have seen a couple walking down the street who are at different ends of the ‘hotness scale’? “How did HE get HER!?” is a common one, my friends and I call it ‘careering’. Maybe I should send that to Oxford English Dictionary. . .

Our Environment's Influence

           

            The picture above demonstrates a simple communication between a dyad. The “sender” of the message codes the message and sends it through a “channel” or “medium” to the “receiver”. Once the receiver has received and decoded the message they will give the sender some form of verbal or non-verbal “feedback”. All of this seems simple enough, but the environment in any communicative situation is the variable which influences what we can talk about at any given place or time.

            The environment (also context) is primarily the difference between a public versus a private setting for communication. Depending on where we are, what we talk about is different. We think about what is appropriate for the given situation. As an international student in the US I have naturally been around many other international students because we tend to migrate towards each other. Now, being from Australia, I have had minimal culture shock. I think that America is so similar to Australia it’s uncanny. But I have witnessed things by watching other international students that are borderline unacceptable in the culture that we know. This raises the question, “Why are certain things appropriate in some cultures but not in others?” This is a question that I find I cannot answer. Is it a question of civility? Morals? Manners? Maybe even the sensitivity level across cultures?

            Within our communication environment we have cultural trends, which are ever-changing. There are expectations within our cultures, which we are expected to adhere to; however, we are never truly educated on other cultures unless we become part of them in some way. This is why there is so much confusion across cultures about what is and is not acceptable behavior. In our culture (the US culture) our communication is seriously influenced by our patterns of work. What we talk about, how long we can talk, and when we can talk is all influenced by our work schedules, our availability. At work we are also expected to multitask. Gone are the days when people had one career for their entire lives, now we are expected to have a much more extensive skill set. This translates into our everyday life because we now multitask our relationships; we may be talking to someone while we text, or we may be on the phone while w update our facebook page. We have all been culprits and victims of this sort of behavior, and despite how frustrating it is when people start to phase out of our conversations because of another one they are having through a different channel, it is the cultural trend of this day and age and it doesn’t look like it will stop anytime soon. Channels can also alter the reactions of the receiver. If we send a text we expect an almost instant response and if we don’t get it we assume something is wrong. However, if we send the same message through the mail, we will wait about a month before we start to worry.

            Along with the impact of the channel through which we send/receive messages comes the impact of the media. No matter how much we try to deny being influenced by the media, we are influenced by it an extraordinary amount, but sometimes we don’t even know we are being influenced. Every day we can be influenced by all sorts of different media, such as; magazines, radio, books, novels (fiction and non-fiction), television, newspapers, billboards, etc. There are three distinct time periods that the impact of media has been divided into; I-1950-1960, II-1960-1970, and III-1970-1990 (debated as to whether or not we are still in this stage). Supposedly vision I was when we had effective communication only when everyone involved was happy. Vision II was when we could only make people happy by being ourselves. And finally, vision III was a combination of I and II. I don’t doubt that our communication methods have improved, but I don’t buy the three vision theory. I’m sure that people still had the ability to care about both themselves and others in the 1950’s. However, as time has passed and technology has developed, movies have changed completely. Some things we see in entertainment today would have been completely unacceptable 50 years ago, but when we watch movies from that time period it is not realistic enough for us, consequently producers have to give their consumers what they want.

            As a final point, the way we perceive our environment strongly influences the way we act. In a formal environment we will go into less breadth and depth. In a warm environment we will be more comfortable, more personal, more spontaneous, and thus, more efficient. In a private environment we will be more intimate, thus going into more breadth and depth. In a familiar environment we will less deliberate in our communication and express more about what is really on our mind. In a constrained environment we will evaluate how long we will be there, and quite often reveal less information early. Can you think of a particular situation where any of these have influenced your communication? How about every communication situation ever?

The Meaning of Life

            Have you ever wondered what the meaning of life is? Well according to Abraham Maslow (the late American psychologist), we exist to satisfy needs both for ourselves and others. Maslow created a visual aid called the Hierarchy of Needs, depicting the psychological and physical levels of human needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs is a pyramid consisting of 5 levels, which are what I am going to discuss.

            The lowest level, the base of the pyramid, is physiological needs. These needs are basic for survival and must be satisfied first before moving up the pyramid. These physiological needs consist of; air, water, food, rest, etc. The second level is safety needs, which involve self preservation as well as physical and financial well-being. Safety needs consist of; shelter, clothing, protection from threats, and so on. The third level, social needs, is the most important in terms of interpersonal communication and I will elaborate on it soon. But social needs are concerned with love and friendship and the concept of being accepted, appreciated, loved, and cared for. The fourth level is self-esteem, or personal needs, which include the need for achievement, status, prestige, and the desire to respect ourselves and be respected by others. The fifth and final level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is self actualization needs. This is the notion of personal fulfillment; the ability to fulfill our potential and become everything we are capable of being.

            Now, you may not necessarily agree with this theory, I mean, I agree that we are all trying to chase success, but I don’t think it’s our sole purpose on this planet. I don’t think life is so simple that we can structure it and condense it into five stages. However, upon deeper analysis of the third level (social needs), I found that many of the needs we have in this area connect to many, if not all of my relationships. Interesting.

            Social needs, or interpersonal needs, can be broken down into three separate categories; inclusion, control, and affection. As people we want to be included in society, clubs, teams, relationships etc. We want control, we want to be able to do what we want to do, and if we don’t want control, we will seek relationships with controlling people in which we relinquish our control. And your original perception of affection may be that we just want to be loved and cuddled, however, it means that we want to have power over other people, but this power is based on other people’s perceptions of us. Power must be given to us by our peers; it does not just come because we want it.

            The needs we have (our self needs) are often hard to measure for ourselves for a number of reasons. Often we do not have an awareness of what we want within specific areas of needs. The problem here is that if we don’t know what we need, we can’t request it and obviously we won’t receive it. We may also repress our needs, not admitting them to ourselves or our relationship partners, which causes immense frustration for both parties in the relationship. We may distort our needs to make them seem like more or less than they really are. Finally, we may avoid our needs by moving on to other activities or conversational topics whenever this need arises. I’m sure you have either witnessed or performed many of these in your interpersonal experiences, I know I have.

            In contrast to the self needs, there are other needs. They are essentially the exact opposite of self needs and they are just as difficult to analyze. Self fulfilling prophecies assume that some is a certain way, so we treat them this way and regardless of whether they were this way or not, they will start acting how we treat them. Concealment is when other people try to hide their needs. Verbal and non-verbal behavior can mean multiple things, but we naturally assume we know what is being communicated, when more often than not we are actually so much more far off than we think. Selective interaction is when we choose to interact with people whom have similar or matching needs to our own. We get so used to seeing these needs that if a new need arises, it is unrecognizable to us and we are unable to fulfill it. Finally, sometimes we overvalue the intent of people’s behavior and interpret the way they act in a way they didn’t intend. A common example for me is if I talk to someone who has just had a bad day, or even had a fight on the phone. They may have not had enough time to get over this negativity and they still talk to you with an unintentional attitude. This is where we often overvalue their intent of behavior and we may think they are mad at us, when really they are just frustrated at an external source.

            Obviously our needs change over our lifespan and between males and females, but do you really think that the only reason we exist is to fulfill these needs? I can see where Maslow was coming from, but I don’t buy it, we strive for success and we compete to reach the top of our field, but at the end of the day it’s only physiological and safety needs that we physically can’t live without.

Do we realize our relational development?

Have you ever thought that you’ve developed a relationship more quickly than usual? Or conversely, no matter how hard you’ve tried, been unable to progress a relationship to the next level? Sometimes I’ve found myself bouncing up and down in a relationship (friendship or otherwise), not knowing how to steady or stay in one direction. This week I found out why.

Mark L. Knapp and Anita L. Vangelisti developed the “Staircase Model,” a theory used in relationship development. The title of this theory is rather accommodating, as it discusses why we may or may not feel like we are going up and down steps in our relationships. Whether we want to bond or terminate a relationship, there are steps we take, whether consciously or subconsciously, to do so.

When two people are “coming together” in a relationship, there is an initiating stage, stage 1. This is where we have our initial encounters and we begin to develop greeting rituals. In my opinion, these greeting rituals are somewhat superficial. Obviously we have not begun to disclose any information to these strangers, so the question, “Hey, how are you?” is nearly always followed with, “Good thanks, yourself!” This is due to the fact that this exact conversation is hard wired into our brains, so we can greet someone without the need to make small talk, but we still seem civil and polite. If a stranger asked me how I was, I would not proceed to tell them how terrible the last few weeks of my life have been, “Good thanks,” will do until I get to know you. Stage 2 is the experimenting stage, where small talk is introduced and we discover our similarities and differences. This is where we figure out whether or not we want to pursue this relationship. Since I have moved to the US, I have realized (only after studying communication) that in comparison to the amount of people I meet, I rarely make it past this stage. I think that may be attributed to the rewards and costs involved in Social Exchange Theory, but I will discuss that later. Stage 3, the intensifying stage is where we start to get comfortable in this new relationship and in-depth disclosure and emotional expression occurs. Due to the comfort, we are able to create nicknames for each other and make casual verbal statements of commitment. This is where things can get awkward, because if one person gets to this stage before you, you may not be ready for the romantic dinner for two at the most expensive restaurant in town. Stage 4 is the integrating stage, obviously if you use your common sense; this is when everything starts to combine. Social networks merge, along with attitudes and preferences, and you may become one of those annoying couples that finish each other’s sentences. Along with all of that, people outside of the dyad begin to put a label on your relationship; it could be “boyfriend and girlfriend,” “BFF,” or any other variation. The final stage in “coming together” is stage 5, my favorite stage, bonding. This is when relationships become institutionalized or official. Couples may become “Facebook official” or get married. If one gets invited to a party, it is naturally assumed that they will both be attending. And, finally, significant barriers to breakup are erected, meaning that both parties in the relationship have an agreement on what is acceptable and what is not. For example, a best friend may breach your trust by telling someone else something you told them in confidence, or a boyfriend/girlfriend may cheat on you, both of which are ground for break up. You may be wondering why this stage is my favorite, it is not because I agree with it or enjoy going through this part of a relationship. It is because the term “stage five clinger” was used in the film Wedding Crashers and it was hilarious. This would obviously translate to someone who got stuck on stage 5, or a “stage five bonder” according to Knapp and Vangelisti.

Now, “coming apart” is essentially the opposite of “coming together. Stage 1 is the differentiating stage; its function is to maintain individual identity and autonomy, basically the opposite of integrating. Stage 2 is circumscribing, its purpose is to avoid in depth disclosure, but it is similar to experimenting, because you are still communicating more than you would in stage one, but you are not specific in anything you say and you are careful not to disclose much about yourself. Stage 3 is stagnating; its goal is to achieve psychological separating. This is when communication comes to a complete standstill. Stage 4 is avoiding, which is obviously to achieve physical separation, this can be done when you are trying to break up with someone, or if you fear someone is trying to break up with you. The final stage is the terminating stage. Its job is to break up while minimizing negative affect and negative consequences. This is where we often hear the cliché break up lines: “it’s not you, it’s me,” “let’s just be friends,” or “we should have a break.”

Now back to Social Exchange Theory. This theory states that we are constantly exchanging resources in relationships (resources are rewards or costs) and people naturally attempt to maximize rewards. I think that the reason why I rarely get past stage 2 of “coming together” with new people is that I may be quick to judge people on what they offer me as a reward (loyalty, humor, trust, money, a car, etc.) or a cost (betrayal, conflict, stress, clinginess, etc.). It sounds shallow and jerky, but ask yourself this question: why are you in the relationships you’re in, and why have you terminated others?

We may fall into "coast mode"

We were told in our Interpersonal Communication class that we would, more often than not, analyze communication styles in everyday conversation. Personally, I wasn’t sure if I believed it, but now I do. I have caught myself, on numerous occasions, analyzing communication styles within my own everyday communication, and through various media outlets.

During the first week of school I have noticed so many changes in my own communication due to meeting so many new people. I found that intimacy and relational type have an undeniable influence on what is said and how it is interpreted. Conversational depth and breadth completely changes from the time I first meet someone, to a week later after I have sat with them in class or at lunch, engaged in a number of conversations with them, and disclosed more personal details about myself. Eventually we are able to put labels on our relationship, determining what we can say to each other and how. These labels can place “unwritten rules” on relationships, which can often be associated with restrictions, comfort, stress, or otherwise. Once we become familiar with each other we discover how to decode each other’s messages.

I have found that when I meet new people, content level is very important. I am careful not to talk about anything that may be too personal, upsetting, embarrassing, or anything similar. As relationships develop the content level and relational level generally increase together, but with this some complications may arise. As people become more intimate, they may be under the illusion that the other person in the relationship knows what they mean when they say something and miscommunication may occur. This is when we have the infamous “You should have known what I meant” conversation. Complexities such as the assumption of consistency and simple meaning are common factors in conflict. The assumption of consistency is when one person says something and the receiver of the message assumes that next time they say the same thing; it will have the same meaning. Obviously this is not the case because more often than not, the situation would have changed the next time it is said. When we assume simple meaning, we think that when someone says something, they mean it. The fact is that as the relationship increases, the meanings become farther apart due to comfort levels and increased use of communicational tools such as sarcasm and other things of that nature.

Until conflict or a spark in intensity arise, we may fall into “coast mode” and forget that what people say is not necessarily what they mean. Until an alert is triggered, it is easy to overlook the fact that we are not being lied to; we may have just incorrectly decoded their message, or not decoded it at all. We can be ignorant at times and it is hard to realize when we are, but when we effectively communicate and make it past all the tricky little obstacles, our language and way of communication is easy enough… Right?

I have included the theatrical trailer for “Snatch” because there is such an incredible mix of cultures who get involved with each other and miscommunication is inevitable. It shows many of the aspects of communication that I have discussed and exaggerates the trouble that may come with it!