Dark Side Communications Exam 1

uncertainty

inability to understand or predict another’s attitudes/behaviors

relational uncertainty

self uncertainty

partner uncertainty

doubt surrounding relationships

doubt about one’s own commitment to a relationship

doubt about partner’s commitment

subdimensions of relational uncertainty

behavioral norms, mutuality of feelings, state of the relationship, and future of the relationship

tolerance of ambiguity

the way one perceives information/circumstances that are uncertain

attachment styles

secure - positive view of self and others, low anxiety/avoidance

preoccupied - negative view of self, positive view of others, high anxiety/low avoidance

dismissive avoidant - positive view of self, negative view of others, low anxiety/high avoidance

fearful avoidant - negative view of self and others, high anxiety/avoidance

relational turbulence model

any event that causes relational uncertainty

perceived network involvement

perception of behaviors others show toward relationship

uncertainty reduction strategies

• passive (observation)

• active (through a 3rd party)

• interactive (direct contact w/ target)

• extractive (use of online information)

ideology of openness

open communication leads to healthy/happy close relationships (good for those who value direct communication)

communication privacy management theory

ways people establish/preserve control over privacy boundaries

private info

• ownership

• control

• turbulence

ownership - assumptions about who owns private info

control - how individuals create/employ privacy rules to regulate dissemination of their personal info

turbulence - difficulties/disruptions that arise when attempting to coordinate privacy boundaries and info regulation between 2 people

support marshaling

talking about issues can garner social support

thought suppression

the harder you try to think about something, the more you will think about it

• disclosure → increased relational satisfaction

• topic avoidance → decreased relational satisfaction

standards for openness hypothesis

evading discussion of topics is only harmful to the extent that doing so is seen as an indicator that the relationship is not healthy

individual-based motivators

protecting oneself (face and privacy)

• identity management - need to protect face

• privacy management - need for independence and autonomy

relationship-based motivators

desire to protect one’s relationship

• relationship protection (safeguard from harm)

• relationship de-escalation - prevent a relationship from further connection

information-based motivators

desire for high-quality communication

• partner unresponsiveness - worry that partner won’t be helpful

• futility of discussion - worry conversation will be a waste

• communication efficacy - judgement about one’s own comm skills

relationship transgressions

violations of implicit or explicit rules for appropriate behavior within the context of the relationship

relational disturbances: salience

implications for individuals who have experienced the offense and for their relationship

relational disturbances: focus

they violate specific standards of acceptable relational behavior that can be identified by affected parties

relational disturbances: consequence

require some kind of redress attempt to asuage negative impact

accomodation

we modify our natural tendencies toward responding to negativity in kind

attributions

we develop explanations for the causes of behavior

• internal - we determine that a behavior stemmed from internal control, is stable, likely to be repeated, and perpetrator was in control

• external - we conclude a behavior stemmed from external control, is temporary, unlikely to be repeated, and is not contolled by perpetrator

fundamental attribution error

we attribute our own transgressions more positively and our partner’s more negatively

positive illusions

we see our partner through rose-colored glasses, exaggerating positives and downplaying negatives

extradyadic communication

relational problems are a common discussion topic with social network

• transgression minimizing - attempt to downplay/justify, absolving partner of responsibility

• transgression maximizing - plays up culpability and offensiveness, often by accusing, blaming, or criticizing

hurt

experienced when people perceive themselves to be emotionally wounded by the communication/actions of another

hurtful communication

something said or done that causes emotional injury

• accusations, threats, jokes, lies, questions, statements

• Vangelisti’s typology of hurtful messages

factors that can lead to experiencing hurt

• inability to refute message

• perceived intent of hurtful communication (more intent = more hurt)

• frequency of hurtful communication (degree of hurt lessens if you’re accustomed to repetition)

• how experience of hurt is explained by recipient

• personal characteristics of the recipient (avoidant/anxious attachment)

• qualities of the relationship with hurtful communicator (satisfaction vs benefits)

social pain

actual/perceived separation from social relationships with others and vulnerability accompanying separation

responses to hurtful communication

active verbal responses - constructive/destructive confrontation

acquiescent responses - yielding to initiator and their ability to emotionally wound

invulnerable responses - efforts to pretend communication wasn’t hurtful

satisfaction

how fulfilling you view the relationship

• compare what you’re getting to what you think you deserve

commitment math

commitment = satisfaction + investment - alternatives