COMM 5402Advanced Interpersonal Communication

Fall 2010Ascan F. Koerner

Knowledge

Ways of knowing Empiricism

Based on experience / senses Rationalism

Based on reason Constructivism

Based on convention

Science One way to generate knowledge Based on Empiricism & Rationalism

(logic) Assumes objective Truth

Reality independent of observer Regularity of reality (stability & laws) Observer capable of observation

Social science assumes this about the social world (at least to a degree)

Science & Theory Theories are formal articulations of

knowledge The scientific method is to gain

knowledge by deriving hypotheses and testing them (by attempting to disprove their predictions)

Thus, science is the process of developing and testing theories

Defining Theory I

Theory differs frominformal everydayknowledge by being moreexplicit, formallyorganized, and abstract.

(McGuire, 1989).

Defining Theory II

A theory is a set of interrelatedconstructs (concepts), definitions, andpropositions that present a systematicview of phenomena by specifyingrelations among variables, with thepurpose of explaining and predictingphenomena.

(Kerlinger, 1986).

Human Need for Explanation Need for theory in human mind 3 ways of experience the world

observer theorist (observer & explanation) researcher (theorist & test)

Theoretical Models Units (Variables) Laws of Interaction Boundaries System States Propositions Operationalizations Hypotheses

Ideas to keep in mind

1) No a priori limits on what theory is

about

2) A theoretical model has to be complete

3) Adequacy = internal logic

4) Validity is determined through research

5) Only testing makes a theory scientific

Preferred Theory

Is a matter of consensus- consensus about boundaries & scope- consensus about the internal logic- consensus about empirical evidence

Questions What about Truth? Does research

lead to truth? What exactly is the difference

between adequacy and validity of a theory?

Why is a preferred theory determined by consensus and not by validity?

Standards of a Scientific Theory Explanation Prediction Parsimony Falsefiability Utility

Two Goals of Science

Prediction focus on outcomes focus on variable values focus on stability & transition of

system states

Understanding/Explanation focus on understanding of causal

relationships among units

Two Paradoxes Precision: prediction without

understanding Power: understanding without

prediction

Assignment In your group, think of an example

for the precision paradox and an example for the power paradox.

Using your examples, determine whether they really are paradoxes, and try to resolve them (i.e., explain how they are possible)

Explaining the Paradoxes Precision: deterministic

relationships among units lead to stable associations between them that can be observed

Power: theoretical models highlight significant relationships between units w/o accounting for ALL causal factors or their interactions

Units defined:

Units are mental conceptualizations that represent the parts of a theoretical model that interact with one another in specific ways.

Theoretical Models

Unit

Unit

Unit+-

-

= Laws of Interaction = Boundary

Properties of Units Units are things or properties of things Units are plural, at least in principle Units can be attributes or variables, i.e.,

are categorical or continuous Units can be real or nominal, i.e.,

represent actual or hypothetical constructs

Units can be sophisticated or primitive, i.e., are defined or undefined

Exercise: Units = things or properties of things

Relational intimacy in a couple A person’s religious belief A group’s ethnicity Family communication patterns A person’s height

Laws of Interaction: link units of a theory do NOT require causality may be categorical may be sequential may be determinant may be negative

Types of Interaction: linear curvilinear recursive

Efficiencies of Laws

rate of change covariance directionality presence-

absence

High Efficiency

Low Efficiency

Conditions for Causality Covariance Temporal Precedence Exclusion of Plausible Alternatives

Propositions A truth statement in regard to the

theoretical model NOT in regard to reality (i.e., no need

for empirical truth) Must follow accepted rules of logic A statement about the relationship

among units NOT a statement about unit or set

membership.

Propositions & Laws

equivalent to a law of interaction

more limited then a law of

interaction

combining two or more laws of

interaction

Empirical Indicators

Operationalization of a theoretical

construct Good Indicators are reliable and

valid

Reliability: consistency of measure

Validity: measuring the right thing.

Reliability and Validity

Validity

Reliability

low

low

high

high

Types of Validity in Social Science Face Validity

Does it make sense? Content Validity

Is the entire concept represented? Criterion Validity

Does it correlate with other known measures?

Construct Validity Does it behave like the construct outside

the model?

Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a prediction about

the values of units of a theory (where empirical indicators are employed for the units in each proposition) that allow researchers to assess the validity of the theoretical model.

Three condition of a good test of a scientific theory

A) deducible from the theoretical model

B) improbable unless theoretical model is “true”

C) verifiable (testable)

Hypotheses Testing and Theory Development Extensive Tests: test all strategic

hypotheses Intensive Tests: test only key

hypotheses Inductive Tests: build theory from

empirical data

Assignment Define Communication: In 1

paragraph, write a definition of interpersonal communication that captures the concept (unit). Base the definition on knowledge you have from a prior course, experience, or a theoretical approach you are familiar with.

Group Assignment Read each definition aloud Compare and contrast the

definitions Discuss strengths and weaknesses

of each definition Synthesize a final definition of IPC Think about operationalizations of

you definition

Defining Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal Communication is any interaction between two or more persons who are aware of each other and: exchange information create meaning exert influence establish social reality Create & maintain relationships

History of IPC Explorations in Interpersonal

Communication, 1976 Created a vision for the field Emphasized dyadic relationships and

symbiosis of IPC and relationship development

Interpersonal Processes, 1987 Interdisciplinary & focusing on processes

beyond relationship development

Evolving Trends Proliferations of Identifications Globalization The Dark Side Dominant & Alternate

Metatheoretical Views Focus on Applied & Funded

Research Technology

Class Discussion Rules Discussion may start with a brief

review of core assumptions / theoretical model

Each student prepares at least one question to ask in class

Each question is answered by at least two students before I get a turn

Homework Assignment

Think of a phenomenon in interpersonal communication that is in need of a theoretical explanation (i.e., a topic for your term paper). Write a one paragraph research proposal answering the what & why questions. Due Tuesday, Oct., 12th!

The Theory of Evolution

Life evolves through the dual process of random mutation and selection, such that those changes that increase a gene’s (i.e., usually its carrier) reproductive success are passed on to future generations and spread through the gene pool, whereas changes that decrease a gene’s (i.e., usually its carrier) reproductive success are not passed on and disappear from the gene pool.

Theory of Evolution (Darwin) Variation (random change of traits) Inheritance (passing on of traits to

offspring) Selection (of advantageous traits)

- Survival- Reproduction

Inclusive Fitness (Hamilton)

Evolution understood from the

gene’s perspective(I.e., Selfish

Gene) Essentially, genes evolve

Solves “problem” of altruism

Evolved Psychological Mechanisms

solve specific recurring problems of survival or reproduction

takes in limited information uses decision rules to obtain

output output can be psychological,

physiological, or behavioral

Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) Those factors that determine

fitness and selection of an adaptation

Factors might be environmental and social

Many of the social factors might not be temporally stable

Relational Dialectics Dialogic theoretical paradigm, not

unsimilar to interpretive stance Evaluative criterion is heuristic

value Based on Hegel’s Dialectics

Meaning arises out or dialectic tension

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis However, unlike Hegel, no

synthetical resolution but continuous struggle

Process of Dialectics Located in langue use that make

reference to divergent discourses Communication is intertextual

Distal already spokens Proximal already spokens Proximal not yet spokens Distal not yet spokens

Fundamental to DialecticsPOWER?

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Persons are motivated to explain &

predict social interactions

Thus, in early stages of

relationships, persons are motivated

to reduce uncertainty

Uncertainty Reduction Strategies

Passive: observing other Active: asking 3rd parties Interactive: communicating with

other Asking Disclosing Relaxing

Strategy determined by: Effectiveness Social Appropriateness

Axioms of URT Verbal Communication – Uncertainty Nonverbal Affect – Uncertainty Information Seeking + Uncertainty Intimacy – Uncertainty Reciprocity + Uncertainty Similarities – Uncertainty Liking – Uncertainty Shared Networks – Uncertainty

Relational Uncertainty Sources

Self, other, relationship Levels

Episodic & global Themes

Relationship dependent Context dependent

Uncertainty Management Theory Uncertainty Discrepancy

UD = Ud – Ua

Outcomes Process Results

Efficacies Communication Coping Target

Uncertainty Management

Relational Turbulence Model Transition

Change in circumstance that create potential for relationship change

Turbulence Tumultuous experience in response to

transition Relational uncertainty Partner interference

Relational Turbulence Model

RelationshipUncertainty

Partner Interference

RelationshipChange

Cognition

Emotion

Behavior

Workplace relationships Membership negotiation:

the process of transforming individuals to organizational members

Ongoing communication and evaluation resulting in acceptance or marginalization

Assimilation vs. socialization

Organizations Context of workplace relationships Comm. practices constitute

structure and culture of organization

S&C guide and constrain workplace communication

Workplace relationship and friendship

Similarities Progression & continuity, role

expectations, multidimensionality Differences

Formed & dissolved involuntarily Affect financial livelihood Affect professional growth &

advancement Expectation of task performance

Membership Negotiation Familiarizing with others Acculturation & adaptation Increasing involvement Receiving recognition Acquiring job skills Role negotiation

IPC theory and the workplace Expectancy violation Social exchange Attraction research Relational framing

Comforting Messages Messages alleviating or lessening

emotional distress of others Type of supportive communication,

i.e., comm. designed to aid others

Person Centered Comm. HPC: acknowledges, elaborates,

legitimizes, & contextualizes feelings and perspective of distressed person

LPC: deny feelings and perspective of other, criticize, make illegitimate, prescribe how to feel and act

Theory of conversationally induced reappraisals Based on appraisal theory of

emotion Is limited to explain function of

HPC messages only

CognitiveProcessing

Dual Process Model of Supportive Communication

MessageContent

ContextCues

PsychologicalResponse

Ability to process

Motivation to process

Demand / Withdraw Pattern of Communication where

one partner makes demands and the other withdraws

D/W associated with dissatisfaction Historical Explanations

Gender difference Social structure (men more powerful) Conflict structure (one desiring

change demands)

Caughlin’s research HDWW & WDHW correlated within

couples Power in parent/adolescent

relationship NOT correlated to withdrawal

Attempts at influence associated with demand

Multiple Goals perspective Primary Goal

Goal at content level of conversation Goal used to label interaction Goals that motivate comm behavior

Secondary Goals Other relevant goals that are pursued

simultaneously in interaction Self & relationship goals (primarely) Constrain communication behavior

Types of demand/withdraw Discuss/exit Socratic question/perfunctory

response Complain/deny Critisize/defend

Deception detection Consistent findings

Just above chance of accuracy (54%) Deception detection only 47%

People overestimate their detection ability, unrelated to actual performance

Consistent truth bias

Why poor detection? No consistent cross situational

cues for deception People pay attention to wrong cues People rely on wrong heuristics Small effect of familiarity Research ignores contextual cues

Interpersonal Deception Theory

Deception is goal directed, intentional, & interactive (dynamic & interdependent)!

Focus on both sender & receiver Focus on cognition, emotion, and

behavior

IDT & detection accuracy Result of actor, relationship, &

interactional factors Skills & performance Medium Suspicion Situational constraints

More heavily influence by late judgments than earlier judgments

Levine’s research Veracity effect: truth bias makes

truth accuracy higher than lie accuracy

Park-Levine probability model AT = at*pt + al*pl

Hurtful Communication Hurt

Complex emotion Negative & painful (adverse) Relational transgression &

devaluation Vulnerability Future loss

Hurtful behavior Types Intensity Frequency All are related to experience of

hurt

Moderating Variables Cognitive

Perceived intent Perceived causes Habituation & Sensitization

Individual Differences Attachment orientation Self-esteem Rejection sensitivity

Moderating Variables (cont.) Relational

Relationship Type (voluntariness) Satisfaction Structural Commitment Emotional Context

Functions of hurtful comm. How can HC be used? What effects does it have?

On individuals? On relationships?

How strategic are people when using it?

Culture & Relationships Relationships situated within

cultures, i.e., speech communities Contradictory to defining

interpersonal relationships as based on knowledge of individual psychology (Miller, 1978)

IP Communication Norms = expectations Premises = unstated (i.e., shared)

assumptions about meaning of behavior

Contingent = open to interpretation/influence

Coeribles = behaviors not usually open to influence

Methods for studying IPC Emphasis on interact (sequence)

rather than act Interpretation vs. coding “Theory” internal to case vs.

universal “Experience near” vs. “experience-

distant” concepts Writing as part of the method

Hmm? “The conceptual objective of

ethnographies of speaking is to show what is truly universal about interpersonal communication by showing what is specific to particular groups of people.” (p. 259)

Tips for Papers Follow Assignment

Label all parts of the theory Have a clearly defined theoretical

model Literature Review

Should be holistic (unifying & recurring themes, commonalities and differences)

Do NOT summarize individual articles Should inform theoretical model

Follow APA guidlines

APA Styles Is a formal, scientific style of writing

No contractions, slang, directly addressing the reader, etc.

Consistent appearance Everything double spaced, all same

font size, all same font except italics Headings organize paper Facts matter, not opinions

Support claims with evidence

In text references According to Smith and Miller

(2001), families with two or more children...

Families with two or more children are more conflicted (Smith & Miller, 2001).

Paraphrase, do not quote unless it cannot be paraphrased

If quote, then p# (Miller, 2001, p.13)

References Ritchie, D.L. (1991). Family communication

patterns: An epistemic analysis and conceptual reinterpretation. Communication Research, 18, 548-565.

Ryss, D. (1981). The family's construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (pp. 50-59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

IPC on TV Three areas of interest

Aggression/Violence Gender Roles Sex & Romance

Aggression / Violence Content:

TV is violent medium, esp. Children Programming

Relational aggression often verbal Effects

Aggressive tendencies Fear Desensitization

Gender Roles Content

Males overrepresented Communication styles sex-

stereotyped Relationship roles stereotypical

Effects May contributed to sexist beliefs Parents may moderate such effects

Sex & Romance Content

Increasingly sexual Sex is recreational Sexuality stereotypical

Effects Some evidence for greater sexual

activity

Theoretical Models Priming Social Development Perspective Social Learning Theory Cultivation Theory Social Cognitive/Schema Theories