Interpersonal Communication Exam 3

What makes conflict challenging?

It isn’t the conflict itself, but the differing ideas/gut level orientations towards conflict. We bring different lenses and we don’t realize it. Metaconflict often comes up in these situations.

Herbert Simons

• Did a lot of work on deep questions of how we approach conflict, how we are wired about conflict. He found two views.

  • Disruption View

  • Normality View

Disruption View

• When we think about conflict as ___, when they approach conflict with this idea, they think the nature of human relationships is to be harmonious, unless someone does something to disrupt or does something wrong. Everything is harmonious until someone does something to disrupt.

• “We would’ve been fine if you didn’t say ___.”

• How can we mitigate damage to harmony?

Normality View

• The view that conflict, not harmony, is the natural state of affairs. Societies as a whole tend to be conflictual; we find ways not to get along, wrestle over resources, etc. This happens unless someone comes to bring harmony and peace to it.

• Conflict is not inherently good or bad, it’s just something that happens. Is there a way to harness this conflict for positive outcomes? Approaching this way can lead to a more optimistic viewpoint.

Four Blocks of Conflict

• Leverage points for moving conflict; whether it be to a more positive direction, or a negative direction. These are the things that set the stage for interpersonal conflict to arise.

1. Interdependence

2. (Perceived) Incompatible Goals

3. Potential Relational Harm

4. Sense of Urgency to Resolve Incompatibilities

   *Just having a few of these does not guarantee conflict, but all four does.

Interdependence

The idea that rather than living on parallel tracks, my actions influence you goals, and your actions influence my goals. You achieving your goals is not entirely dependent on you. We are intertwined, so more conflict could happen.

Relational Turbulence Theory

• In any relationship at any length or substance, you will run into relational turbulence.

  • In the realm between never met you to marriage, how does the relationship progress? Involvement.

  • “Crap” - jealousy, withholding nonverbal affection, angry towards each other.

• When they put the pieces together, broadly speaking, there was a curvilinear relationship between involvement and “crap” (negative stuff) popping up in a relationship.

• New couples had less “crap” going on. But as they go on, they get more involved. At the transition from casual to serious dating, you would start to see negative thoughts or negative communication behaviors start to spike in that moderate level. Then, time goes on. For couples who stay together, the “crap” levels off, and they report more love or more engagement with each other.

• Relational uncertainty tends to subside quickly as you get to know them. But, it turns out, relational uncertainty is not completely gone. In fact, there are some levels of uncertainty that only happens at that relationship. This brings new questions that you didn’t have to grapple with before. Later research says it can pop up again and again throughout the relationship, it fluctuates. They found 3 types:

  • Self Uncertainty

  • Partner Uncertainty

  • Relationship Uncertainty

• When you get to a transition point, these questions pop up more often. When relational uncertainty goes up, other things go up too. Conflict becomes more common and less common. People are more likely to lash out at each other, but avoid conflict more. Less likely to constructively discuss it.

• The other big part is interference/facilitiation. When interdependence goes up, they are more likely to help or make achieving goals harder. This could be helping them achieve their goals, but interfering with your own. They could help you achieve your goals, but interfere with your own.

• In a more interdependent relationship, you are more likely to have frequent conflict (helping and interfering goes up). The closer you get to someone, the more capacity you have for all the good stuff, but also the tendency for more conflict. It doesn’t mean the relationship is busted, it doesn’t mean you chose wrong, it just means that you are more interdependent. You can ask the big picture questions.

Self Uncertainty

Uncertainty about me. What do I want out of this relationship? Where do I want to go? How committed to this person do I want to be?

Partner Uncertainty

Uncertainty about them. What are they thinking? Where do they want us to go? Where do they envision this going? Are they all-in?

Relationship Uncertainty

Uncertainty about us as a unit. What is our relationship about? Where is our relationship going? What is okay in our relationship? What isn’t?

(Perceived) Incompatible Goals

Conflicts are shaped by our subjective perceptions. If you subjectively perceive that someone else is out to interfere with what you want, that they have goals that will keep you from your goals, it sets the stage for conflict to occur.

Goal Compatibility

Goals go together. What I want will help you get what you want, and vice versa.

Different Types of Goals

These are shared by both parties.

1. Instrumental Goals

2. (Secondary Goals) → Not considered an actual goal type, but a subcategory of goals that the rest fall under.

   1. Relational Goals

   2. Self-Identity Goals

   3. Other-Identity Goals

   4. Process Goals

Instrumental Goals

The fundamental task that motivates the interaction to begin with. Often, this is what kicks off the entire interaction process. The primary goal in an interaction.

Secondary Goals

They come second in the planning process. Asks, “what’s an appropriate way to confront this?” There are 4 kinds.

Relational Goals

Type of secondary goal that has to do with the type of relationship you want to create or maintain with the other party. Pull us back from being too forceful in our instrumental goal as we are trying to protect the relationship. The delivery could change and be less escalated. “WE thing.”

Self-Identity Goals

Type of secondary goal that relates to the identity you want to project or maintain in the interaction. You want to be viewed as a certain kind of person. How do we want to be viewed in this situation? “ME thing.”

Other-Identity Goals

Type of secondary goal that relates to the identity you want to project on the other person or the other party to strive towards. What behavior in the other party do you want them to change? “YOU thing.”

Process Goals

Type of secondary goal that looks at the actual way you are going to have the actual conversation. It’s how you want the interaction to look and feel. What are we looking to address here? How are we going to do it? What kind of format will we have?

Potential Relational Harm

There’s a perception that conflict is an indicator of a poor relationship, but in terms of relational quality and impact, there is little correlation between how frequently you have conflict and the actual quality of the relationship. However, potential relational harm leads to different conflict styles, as the parties involve might perceive the conflict as being more harmful than it actually is.

Conflict Styles

1. Avoider

2. Battler

3. Collaborator

Avoider

Withdrawals from the interaction or takes steps to make sure the interaction never happens. There’s a lot of downsides to this approach.

Avoider Interaction Cycle (Afifi)

Found that avoidance over time erodes relational quality. The more they avoid talking about things, the more they find themselves becoming dissatisfied in the relationship. It becomes a cycle because overtime dissasatisfaction leads to more avoidance.

Battler

Come in with an aggressive mindset. Conflict is me vs. you battle, and one of us is gonna walk away a winner and the other a loser. However, battling can be appropriate in some circumstances (e.g. courtroom).

Argumentative vs. Aggressive Continuum

Battlers are more prone to use aggressive argument techniques instead of argumentative (good communicator) or assertive. Being argumentative is good, as it focuses on ideas. Aggression is not because it focuses on personal attacks over attacks on ideas.

Benefits of Complaining

Complaining can be healthy for relational quality as it encourages discussion. Complaining is different from criticism. Complaining focuses on specific behaviors that make you feel a specific way. Complaining is relationally healthy, criticism harms a relationship.

Collaborator

Requires you to come into the conflict with the idea that it is at least possible that both parties can win something; they will both gain something that they wouldn’t have from the conflict. It requires working together to overcome something.

Getting to Yes

• Book on project that came out of Harvard that educated on how to effectively manage conflict. In this book, the writers suggest that if we are going to follow the rules to be fair, there are four things you can do to be a more collaborative communicator.

• Steps to Being a Collaborative Communicator:

  1. Attack Problems, Not People

  2. Prioritize Long-term Interests and Goals

  3. Create Options BEFORE Deciding

  4. Criteria for Evaluating

Attack Problems, Not People

• In many cases, people go in with the idea that the other person is the problem. The conflict, then, starts to center on what’s wrong with the other person. We for that the issue isn’t the people themselves, but the defining topic or issue of disagreement. We need to separate out the problem side from the people side. Recognize that people have identity and relationship concerns. Those are different issues than what’s at hand. You can destroy their ideas, but don’t attack the people involved.

• Shift from me vs. you mindset, to an us vs. problem mindset.

Prioritize Long-term Interests and Goals

You may disagree on short-term goals, but consider what the long-term goals are. Consider this and step back on how the conflict affects these. You might want to be right in this situation, but how might that affect the long-term?

Create Options BEFORE Deciding

• Debate different options and decisions before deciding on the route to go. Don’t want until you’re in the conflict to start debating each course. We often come into it with the mindset that we are haggling over details while wanting the big picture (like negotiating a price on an item), but could we find a method that works for both of us?

• More effective to do with the other party. Quantity over quality is the best thing in this stage.

Criteria for Evaluating

You and the other party need to have an open discussion about how the both of you will be evaluating those options. You need to figure out the details of objective criteria for the options. It shifts the conflict away from a battle of wills, to a solution that fits both people’s criteria.

Sense of Urgency to Resolve Incompatibilities

The conflict gets to the point where it must recieve attention, and a decision must be made or an outcome decided upon, or else.

Serial Arguments

• When a relationship gets enriched in a pattern of conflict that they can’t get out of.

• Robert Trap and Nancy Hoff did research on how people argue. They ran into a problem. They asked people to think of an argument, but most people thought of one argument that kept happening. They decided that this was something worth researching. Why do some arguments keep happening?

• Take any argument or conflict, whether it’s one time or serial, all arguments have two steps.

  • Step One: Decision to Confront

  • Step Two: Arguing (which can lead to serial arguments)

    • We give reasons about why we think we are right and you are wrong, and vice versa. Sometimes, we convince each other; sometimes I win, sometimes you win. The arguing works. However, other times, the issue comes back again.

• Mindset is key in working through a serial argument

  • Perceived Resolvability

• Serial arguments can affect physiological and psychological health.

Reasons Arguments are More Likely to Become Serial

*Usually both need to happen

1. One individual in the relationship is cares about both the issue AND the relationship. (“It’s an issue I am passionate about, but I like our relationship.”)

2. Reason-giving (arguing) fails when resolving incompatibility.

   • They agree to drop it and aren’t agreeing, but the issue is still important to them. This is when it becomes a cycle. There are different temperatures in it.

3. Cycle

   • Heating Up: Remember this issue? It’s still bothering me, and I wish we could resolve it. The motivation to resolve it increases, and the frustration to resolve this incompatibility rises.

   • Conflict: If I didn’t convince you the first time, then maybe the second won’t either. The reasons are not working, but I still care about the relationship and the issue. Both parties agree to drop it again and disengage.

   • Cooling Down: Things calm down, and the problem is simmering in the background. It’s still there and it isn’t gone. Then, you get tired of it again.

Perceived Resolvability

The biggest impact on the relationship isn’t the frequency, it’s the perceived resolvability. If you have high levels, you think you will work it out. If you have low levels, you think it will never be worked through. This protects you against the damage that it can cause to a relationship. The research suggests that if you both believe you can work through it one day, the relationship will remain strong. If you are both pessimistic about working it out, problems increase.

What does it take to put a serial argument to rest?

• Resolution is a spectrum/continuum. There are certain ways of solving conflict that are stronger than others.

• Hard to achieve the stronger forms of resolution.

1. Avoidance

2. Capitulation

3. Compromise

4. Consensus

• The weaker the resolution, the more likely it is to flare up again. The stronger the resolution, the less likely it is to flare up again.

Avoidance

Both agree to drop it. Weakest form of resolution.

Capitulation

“Have it your way”; gives up. It’s not optimal, but one person wins. One person got what they wanted. Stronger than avoidance, but still a weak form.

Compromise

Split positions. Find the midpoint and settle there. Both parties give up something, but both parties also gain something.

Consensus

Strongest form. Both parties come around to seeing it the same way. They become committed to the same solution. You change mind, or both come up with third option. Both become persuaded of same thing. Both gain something and are winners. Tends to stay resolved as both parties came around to seeing it the same way.

Mediated Interpersonal Communication

1. Has always been around.

2. We spend a lot of time communicating in mediated forms.

3. It can be accessed at other points in time.

4. It’s not an inherently new thing, BUT the way in which we choose to use a certain medium may have something to say about our messages.

Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message”

• Sending the same message through a different medium changes the message a little bit.

• He is critiquing the idea that the content is only in the message. This is an oversimplification of how communicating works.

• The content does not always mean the same thing based on the medium we send it through. The medium shapes the message in a very powerful way. The medium changes the experience of the message.

• McLuhan argues that the mediums we use to communicate change our understanding of reality and ourselves in a fundamental way.

• We live in a media ecosystem where everything influences everything else. The mediums in which we communicate lead us to experiencing life and ourselves in different ways.

Four Major Media Epochs

1. Tribal Epoch (Pre-2000 BC): Talking (hearing)

2. Literate Epoch (2000 BC): Alphabet (sight)

3. Print Epoch (1450 AD): Book (sight)

4. Electronic Epoch (1850 AD): Telegraph (hearing)

5. Potential new media epoch?

   1. Unclear, but possible. Things have become very individualistic.

*Some of these trends haven’t played out in a way that McLuhan expected.

Tribal Epoch

Living in an oral age brings groups together closely. It makes communication a group thing. Hearing is a group sense.

Literate Epoch

Communicating is no longer about hearing and using our ears, but now our eyes. It changes our understanding of what it is to be human. Seeing is a more singular thing. Leads to people starting to think of themselves more as individuals.

Print Epoch

This is still emphasizing sight and individuality, but one of the things that happens in this epoch is things become more standardized and linear on how we experience them. There are more rules and regulations for how things are written. In a more printed world, people start thinking of themselves as private individuals even more.

Electronic Epoch

We have a shared massive culture. Everybody is watching and hearing the same things. He believed that everyone would have one monoculture called the “Global Village.” This is where his work ended.

Types of Mediated Communication

• Mass Media

  • One-to-Many

  • One way

• Interpersonal

  • One-to-one/Few-to-few

  • Two way

• Masspersonal (O’Brien & Carr, 2018)

  • Highly personalized messages

  • Publicly accessible to wide audience

Perspectives on Mediated Interpersonal Communication

• Uses and Gratifications Theory

• Social Presence Theory (Short et al., 1976)

• Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel)

• Cues-Filtered-Out View (Culnan & Markus, 1987)

• Social Information Processing Theory (Walther, 1996)

Uses and Gratifications Theory

• 1920s-1960s: General assumption (hypodermic needle model)

• It matters WHY you are using that media in the first place. People use media to gratify certain goals that they have. People have different goals. Different people are influenced by different things. People’s uses/motivations make a difference in how media affects them.

• 1970s: Focused on mass media

• 2000s: Applied to internet use (Papacharissi & Rubin)

  1. Interpersonal Utility (replacing or facilitating face-to-face)

     1. E.g. contacting someone to set up a meeting

     2. Linked to how much you use online communication to reinforce face-to-face communication. Stronger relationships tend to see more integration.

  2. Pass Time

  3. Information Seeking

  4. Convenience (faster and easier than face-to-face, phone, etc.)

  5. Entertainment

Hypodermic Needle Model

The idea is that mass media injects ideas into our brains. They make us think in certain ways and we go along with it. Instead, it is more complicated than that.

Social Presence Theory (Short et al., 1976)

• What makes a person feel “real” in interactions?

  • Factor A: Intimacy - Feeling of connectedness

  • Factor B: Immediacy - Psychological distance (verbal and nonverbal responsiveness)

• What verbal and nonverbal cues do you use to increase social presence when interacting with others online?

Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel)

• Richness = potential information carrying capacity of a medium.

• Which medium is richer? In what ways?

  • Video chat vs. Email

• You need to be mindful about what kind of medium would suit this message.

Cues-Filtered-Out View (Culnan & Markus, 1987)

• Digital communication filters out “real world” face-to-face cues.

• Generally seen as impersonal compared to face-to-face.

  • Mediated communication is inferior to face-to-face communication.

  • Reflected in Social Presence & Media Richness Theories.

Social Information Processing Theory (Walther, 1996)

• Digital communication can accelerate relationship formation.

• Hyperpersonal interaction = above and beyond FtF

  • In some cases, digital communication can go above and beyond FtF communication quality. Maybe we have missed some of the benefits? We have assumed FtF is the standard, and have written off other communication styles. What if online is more efficient?

• What are some ways in which digital media can enhance opportunities for IPC and relationship development, compared to FtF?

  • More comfortable to open up.

Does Uncertainty Reduction Theory look different from in-person to media?

Yes, online communication gives you time to deal with your uncertainty before the communication. You also don’t have all the cues and awkwardness that comes from an in-person conversation. It provides new avenues.

Benefits and Costs of Digital Media

• Relationship Formation

  • Most common means for couples to meet.

    • In 2013, surpassed family and friends.

    • Some evidence relationships begin online may be more stable on average.

  • BUT

    • May be due to greater interest in serious commitment (Hall, 2013).

    • LDRs vs. GCRs (Stafford et al., 2005)

      • LDRs more satisfying than GCRs.

      • 1/3 LDRs break up within 3 months of becoming GCRs.

Recognizing the Dark Side of IPC

• 1960s-1980s

  • IPC seen as universal solution to problems.

• 1990s

  • Recognition of IPC’s risks

  • What are the ways it can go wrong?

• 2020s

  • Exploring the “Bright Side of the Dark Side”

    • The things that have been historically described as the “bad side” of communication could have potential benefits.

Dark Side: Empty Apologies

• Spitzberg and Cupaoh

• A case where what should be positive messages (giving apologies) can have a harmful effect on relational quality.

• Sincere Apology Characteristics

  • Change of emotion or demeanor

  • Realization/acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

  • Eye contact/genuine facial expressions

  • Offer solutions for problems/making effort to change.

• Empty Apology Characteristics

  • Quick

  • Doesn’t acknowledge wrongdoing

  • Excuses

  • “I’m sorry, BUT…”

  • Facial expression may still indicate anger.

  • Sarcastic tone.

Infidelity and Jealousy

• Evolutionary Hypothesis (Buss, 1992)

• Double-Shot Hypothesis (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996)

Evolutionary Hypothesis

• Reproductive Fitness: Men and women, for biological reasons, have different things they get jealous about because they impact reproductive success in different ways.

• There are different issues that men and women deal with in the passing of genes.

• Men: Sexual Infidelity → Paternity Threat

  • Because it takes work to raise children to the point where they have children, most males want to make sure they don’t invest time into a child that isn’t theirs. Most men invest the most in children who are their genetic offspring.

• Women: Emotional Infidelity → Resource Threat

  • The idea is that, unlike men, the mom always knows the baby is hers. She doesn’t have to worry about maternity, but what she does have to worry about, though, is the work of raising a child. It’s a lot of work and hard to do alone. It’s easier and more enjoyable when you have someone beside you to do it with you. Her best bet to pass on her genes is to have a partner that sticks around. He needs to be emotionally invested in her.

Double-Shot Hypothesis

• Differences only show up when forced to choose.

• Otherwise, both find sexual infidelity more distressing.

• Different Beliefs about Infidelity

  • Men: Sexual involvement not equal to emotional involvement.

  • Women: Assume emotional and sexual usually go together, so emotional is twice as unfaithful!

Potential Bright Side of Jealousy

• Signals importance of relationship

• Motivates repair and connection

Verbal Aggression

Using language to attack others’ self-concept and sense of self.

Influences on VA

• Low self-esteem

• Family History (Aloia)

• Argumentative Skill Deficits

Family History of Verbal Aggression (Aloia)

• How do the children cope?

  • Often times, the kids have to acclimate and recalibrate how they think about verbal aggressions. They start to view them less as threats.

• FHVA:

  1. Physiological desensitization to conflict.

     • Your body responds like nothing is happening.

  2. Emotional desensitization to conflict.

     • No emotional response to conflict.

  3. Cognitive desensitization (how you think about conflict)

     • Tend to view conflict and verbal aggression as normal and the same.

  4. These qualities add up and affect the tendency in which people carry out verbal aggression and handle conflict in adulthood.

     • High FHVA → (physiological) desensitization to conflict

     • High FHVA → acceptability of using VA

Argumentative Skills Deficits (Infante)

Argumentativeness → reduced verbal and physical aggression.

Potential Bright Side of Aggression

• Too little = Hypersensitive

• Too much = Numb

• Moderate Exposure = Appropriately Sensitized

Anger Expression Styles

1. Aggression: Attacks

2. Passive Aggression: Withholding, sarcasm

3. Avoidance: Denial or distraction

4. Assertion: Clear, respectful

Strategies for Productive Anger Expression

1. Make a factual observation about other’s behavior.

2. Avoid kitchen-sinking

   1. When we start to have a conversation about one issue that’s bothering us, but instead of focusing on that issue, we start bringing in unrelated issues to the person all at once.

3. Use I-Messages, rather than You-Messages

   1. You-Messages: “You make me angry”

   2. I-Messages: “When you do this, I feel angry”

4. Request the change you want to see

   1. XYZ Technique: When you do X, I feel Y, and I would like to see Z happen.

Supportive Communication

Verbal and nonverbal behaviors intended to provide assistance (MacGeorge et al., 2011).

Types of Support Messages

1. Informational

2. Emotional

3. Network

4. Tangible

5. Esteem

• Think about what is suited to best support that person’s need, rather than what we want to give.

Informational Support Message

Provide facts or advice

Emotional Support Message

Validates and empathizes

Network Support Message

Connections to others

Tangible Support Message

Offers physical health

Esteem Support Message

Reinforces self-worth

Optimal Matching Theory (Cultrona & Russell, 1990)

• Support Matching

• Support Adequacy

• Support Gaps

• Sometimes we provide multiple types, rather than just one.

• You want to be flexible in this sense. Do not be afraid of asking people what they need.

Support Matching

Match provided type to desired type.

Support Adequacy

Match amount provided to amount desired.

Support Gaps

When there’s a disconnect between support you need versus the support you are getting, there is a gap. Even if these support types are appreciated, they are stll going to be less effective. Less effective support type.

Verbal Content of Supportive Messages (Burleson, 1987)

• Verbal Person-Centeredness

  • Low Person-Centered

  • Moderately Person-Centered

  • Highly Person-Centered

• There’s a spectruum with nine levels, but you can go off these three levels.

• Invisible Support

Verbal Person-Centeredness

Best predictor of support effectiveness! (High & Dillard, 2012).

Low Person-Centered

• Ignore, challenge, condemn feelings.

• Very ineffective; either unhelpful or counterproductive.

Moderately Person-Centered

Acknowledge, sympathize, distract

Highly Person-Centered

• Acknowledge, encourage reflection, additional perspective.

• Do what moderately person-centered messages do, but go one step further.

• Burleson found that if you want to help people’s emotions actually change, the more that you can get someone talking about their own experiences and feelings, the more they talk about it, the more likely the tendency their mood will improve. They work through it and understand what is going on.

• Sometimes, it’s not what you say, but getting the other person to talk about it.

Dual Process Model of Support (Bodie & Burleson, 2008)

• They were wondering if they could apply principles of dual process models of persuasion to supportive communications styles. They found it was a definite yes.

• Also motivated how they think about the message. Do I want to think hard about what you are saying? Can I at the moment?

• About thinking about the content.

• Supportive Message

  • Motivated and Able to Process Deeply

    • Central Route

  • Unmotivated and/or Unable to Process Deeply

    • Peripheral Route

Central Route

• Think deeply about the content.

  • Level of VPC matters most.

    • If the person giving the message has high levels of person centeredness, their message might receive good outcomes.

    • If person giving the message has low levels of person centeredness, their message can be cruel and lead to bad outcomes.

    • It’s the actual message.

Peripheral Route

• Focus on peripheral features (e.g. presence, relationship, gender, NV immediacy).

  • Peripheral features matter most.

    • They can’t process deeply what you are telling them, but they might recognize the deep relationship to the person saying it. They might feel supported anyways.

    • Maybe it’s not about the message, but could be the body language or voice support.

    • It’s the message packaging.

Sex Differences in Support

• Women seen as more supportive- but only under low processing (Bodie & Burleson, 2008).

• Women are more influenced by message quality than men.

  • Good support helps more, bad support hurts more.

Disagreement

A difference of opinion between two or more people or groups of people.

Argument

A verbal exchange between two or more people who have differing opinions on a given subject or subjects.

Tolerance for Disagreement

The degree to which an individual can openly discuss differing opinions without feeling personally attacked or confronted.

Conflict

An interactive process occurring when conscious beings (individuals or groups) have opposing or incompatible actions, beliefs, goals, ideas, motives, needs, objectives, obligations, resources, and/or values.

Substantive Disagreement

A disagreement that people have about a specific topic or issue.

Procedural Disagreements

Disagreements concerned with procedure, how a decision should be reached or how a policy should be implemented.

Emotions

The physical reactions to stimuli in the outside environment.

Feelings

The responses to thoughts and interpretations given to emotions based on experiences, memory, expectations, and personality.

Emotional Awareness

An individual’s ability to clearly express, in words, what they are feeling and why.