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!