Midterm review: study guide
Midterm review: study guide COMM 1210100-127:Perspectives on Human Communication
Popular in COMM 1210100-127:Perspectives on Human Communication
Popular in Art
COMM 1210100-127:Perspectives on Human Communication
verified elite notetaker
This 25 page Study Guide was uploaded by Becca Hanel on Monday March 7, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to COMM 1210100-127:Perspectives on Human Communication at University of Colorado taught by dr. ruth hickerson in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 267 views. For similar materials see COMM 1210100-127:Perspectives on Human Communication in Art at University of Colorado.
Reviews for Midterm review: study guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/07/16
COMM 1210100 MIDTERM REVIEW 1/13/2016 Messages & Listening >Sending Messages meanings are created through human interaction with symbols (i.e letters that make up words) These symbols are ABSTRACT (words might not mean the same thing to everybody but may look/sound the same → their vs. there), ARBITRARY, & AMBIGUOUS we rely on symbols to communicate & create meanings because communication is symbolic example: “sailor” → there is an assigned image/symbol connected to this word *since symbols are abstract/arbitrary/ambiguous they can lead to misunderstandings Communication as defined in Messages: communication consists of sending/receiving well crafted messages to/from others comm is a SOCIAL activity comm is not “just talk” → there is verbal and nonverbal communication comm often has immediate social/ material consequences comm is a habitual activity → humans, by nature, are creatures of habit changing these comm habits take a lot energy and time > Basic Comm skills: listening (to “really listen”) = openness to unfamiliar perspectives with someone appreciation for their otherness nonverbal and verbal confirmation that you are listening (nodding your head or saying “I understand”) > Research tells us: almost everybody thinks they are a good listener very few people think they need to develop their listening skills listening effectively is something that very few people do most people have never developed the habits needed to be a good listener > What do good listeners look like? verbal } incongruence when these two don't match up (i.e you need both) nonverbal (the most important factor) all listeners don't receive the same message physiological factors, social roles, cultural background, personal interests, and personal needs all contribute to the reception or understanding of a message > 10 reasons for poor listening 1. effort 2. message overload 3. rapid thought 4. psychological noise (personal thoughts) 5. physical noise (distractions around you) 6. hearing problems 7. faulty assumptions 8. interrupting 9. cultural differences 10. digital distractions (phone, laptop etc.) >Practicing mindful listening mindful listening is the essence of receptivity allowing another person to express themselves without interruptions, judgment, disagreeing or discounting * awareness and observation are first steps in refining listening skills 1/19/2016 SelfDisclosure [Ch. 2 in Messages] > Selfdisclosure= communicating info about yourself implies another person is listening and receiving this disclosure can be both verbal and nonverbal can be unintentional (especially nonverbal) “information” implies that this is new info to the other person *see pg. 25 in Messages to see The Johari Window and the different types of selfdisclosure > The theory & selfdisclosure (“ogres and onions”) theory developed by Altman and Taylor in 1973 (revised in 1987) SPT (Social Penetration Theory) is a theory about development of “relational closeness” states that selfdisclosing and learning about others is the process of penetrating deeper into the selves of others and enabling others to penetrate our selves in order to gain a deeper understanding of us this process is gradual AND reciprocal (can't happen over one encounter) each communicator reveals layers of personal depth in SPT, the disclosure is intentional and is our choice > Disclosure and the resulting closeness vary according to the following factors: rewards/benefits of disclosing information costs/vulnerability (can you trust the other person to not reveal the disclosed information?) satisfaction (getting something off of your chest) stability and security of the relationship *breadth→ first step (talk about many different topics at the surface level) v. depth→ last step (talk about fewer things on a deeper level) >SPT continued disclosure may include sharing both highrisk and lowrisk info in sharing info about yourself, you make choices about what you want to share and who you share it with not all relationships warrant the same disclosed info (example: difference in info shared with parents vs. friends) competent communicators use selfdisclosure selectively: weigh the impact that disclosing info may have in a relationship (impact on relational growth and wellbeing) consider how learning personal info may affect another person consider another person’s receptivity and trustworthiness to respond well to what has been shared awareness of the positive and negative consequences of doing so make choices about disclosing info judiciously and sensibly *keep in mind that everything said instantly becomes a part of the relationship’s past and what is said cannot be taken back (can apologize or explain but it will never to erased) > Rewards of disclosure reduce uncertainty in relationships and the stress it creates when a deeper level of selfdisclosure occurs, we experience the rewards of having greater intimacy ( become closer with the person with whom you disclosed that info with) gain the help and support of others achieve the catharsis (relief) that comes from unburdening ourselves >Risks may lose face with another person (example: parents telling you something you didn't know about them can lead to see them differently in a negative light) risk a breach of confidence (if you disclose info to somebody too quickly without knowing their trustworthiness) the cost of disclosure may be a burden to the relationship itself (especially when disclosure is associated with demands or expectations) > Critique of SPT theory has some merit because it's a general theory (not very specific) has generated interesting research but not the theory is not fully supported by data people are not like onions with layers→ life is not that simple assumes relational development happens in linear fashion does not account for gender differences (males are likely less open as women) in close relationships, focus of self and self-centeredness lessens (SPT states that the more you self disclose the closer you will be→ self-centered concept) penetration metaphor is too sexual (turns people off to talk about it) true disclosure is more active the self is not simply revealed but constructed in interactions (can construct how people see you based on what you choose to disclose vs. what not to disclose) *SPT is overall valuable because it began a conversation about types of communicative acts COMM 1210100 Week 3 Notes 1/25/2016 Sending and Receiving Messages cont. > Metamessages rather than messages themselves, metamessages are often the source of interpersonal conflicts or perceived conflicts > Body language and Paralanguage body language= gestures, movements etc. → nonverbal and non vocalized paralanguage= something you do with your voice to add to verbal communication without the use of actual words → nonverbal but vocalized > kinds of nonverbal communication spontaneous: sender’s nonvoluntary display of inner emotional states and a receiver's direct and immediate sensory awareness > Understanding nonverbal cues understand through socialization and interacting with others > Power of nonverbal codes more trusted than verbal communication more emotionally powerful (talking in person is more emotional vs. texting because unable to see the person and pick up how they are really feeling though nonverbal cues) culturally influenced, but express more universal meaning continuous and natural → difficult to turn nonverbal cues off because most of them are involuntary > 3 functions of nonverbal cues 1. express meaning → express how people feel about others and their relationships with them 3 dimensions: liking, status, responsiveness 2. modify verbal meaning - complementing a message: nonverbal elaboration (greeting somebody with an extended hand → implies a handshake) accenting: nonverbals that focus attention on a word repeating: nonverbal repetition of a message ( saying “no” while shaking your head) substituting: nonverbal replacement for verbal message (shaking your head to convey the word “no” without saying it) contradicting: nonverbals that contradict verbal message (saying you're listening when attention is else where) 3. regulate flow of interaction turntaking cues: look at someone to cue that you're looking for a response to what you just said leavetaking cues: begin zipping up jacket/packing up belongings to vue that you’re ready to leave > Autism → shows the importance of nonverbal comm cause difficulties in social interactions, nonverbal and verbal communication (but still highly functional and intelligent) explicitly learn about the world → need to be taught how to interact with people and taught nonverbal cues in order to understand how to express emotions and to understand the emotions of others (not as good as implicitly learning) * implicitly learning about the world → learn social cues overtime through socialization (people who are not autistic) > Nonverbal message systems visual communication: proxemics: how people use or adjust to change in spatial environment arousal and non arousal (what makes you feel safe in an environment) dominance and submissiveness ( judge sits higher than everybody else in court to convey dominance and power) pleasure and displeasure ( is you're upset with somebody and you distance yourself from them) personal space 4 zones: intimate (018”) personal (18”4’) social (412’) public (1225’) haptics: the use of touch comfort bonds relationships rapport (research shows that the person with more power in a relationship initiates touch more often i.e. a boss patting an employee on the back vs. employee patting boss on the back) *touch is the most fundamental and intimate ways we communicate. its also one of the first ways we learn to communicate as babies kinesics: body movement, gestures, posture etc. body movements: can reveal status, emotional state and interest often occurs intuitively and without intent facial expression: universal expressions= happiness, sadness, surprise, fear, anger and disgust may differ throughout cultures based on the level of comfort or freedom to express these emotions physical appearance clothing and adornment shows marital status (wearing a wedding ring or not) economic status (wearing expensive brands) social status/ membership personality Chronemic and Olfactives chronemic: interpreting messages associated with time related to status, judgments of people, cultural differences (if you're late you are giving off the impression that you don't care * in the US) olfactive: messages attached to smells realtors bake cookies during open houses to make the house come off as “homey” > Auditory communication paralanguage=vocalics (characteristics of the voice *not what is said but how it's said) pitch (up and down) resonance (deep/low voice= confidence/strength) articulation (enunciation= confidence/educated) tempo (fast=excited or nervous) volume (loud=confident) rhythm ( emphasis on a particular word *You are late vs. You are late) > Cybernetic Theory of Relationships ( 1950s) developed by G. Bateson applied metamessages to chimps when chimps play fight...how do they know it's playful and not aggressive? they’re communicating something beyond what we (as humans) on the surface→ they use metamessages to let the other chimp know that they are just playing and not actually trying to harm them. metamessage between chimps is understood by them within the context of this act & their relationship > The pragmatics of communication extension of Bateson’s theory to couples and family communication and therapy 5 Axioms of communication one cannot not communicate constantly communicating things about you even when not talking communication has a context and a relationship aspect context= what is said relationship=what is said in context of relationship (example: seeing your friend in the classroom vs. seeing your friend in a bar→ will lead to different behavior towards your friend) the nature of a relationship depends on how both parties punctuate the communication sequence human beings communicate both digitally and analogically digital codes: what the person says/ message analogical codes: the nonverbals that accompany the verbal message (harsh, loud voice, red face etc. → a type of metamessage) example: saying “i’m fine” (digital code) but red face indicates anger (analogical code) all communication is either symmetrical or complementary symmetrical: equal relationship, mirror each other’s behavior (may escalate competitively) → when you’re around somebody all the time you start to act in the same ,manner as them e.g. mannerisms complementary: unequal relationship, behaviors interlock (may become rigid) REVIEW ON WHAT A METAMESSAGE IS: type of message that refers to other messages (a message about a message) both verbal and nonverbal messages can be metacommunicational ex. verbal= “do you understand what i’m saying” ex. nonverbal= wink to communicate that you’re joking example metamessage: “I was on time” → implies that you were late *there is meaning beyond the literal meaning of a metamessage 1/27/2016 > Assertiveness vs. Aggressiveness vs. Passiveness → is learned through social interaction and is context-based Assertive style: make direct statements about your thoughts and feelings stand up for yourself while taking the rights of others into consideration listen attentively and let others know you heard them convey confidence as well as empathy Aggressive style: state personal feelings at the expense of others’ feelings put others down and use sarcasm to humiliate others attack when you don’t get your way use absolute terms (e.g always or never) → don’t take into consideration what others might think convey superiority and strength Passive style: doesn’t directly express thoughts or feelings may use indirect strategies (e.d crying, muttering, frowning) listen more than talk (does not voice opinions) includes lots of disclaimers (e.g “I don’t know if this is a good idea but…”) does not convey confidence > Making Assertive Statements: 3 parts 1) state perspective of the situation 2) state feelings about situation 3) state your needs in terms of the situation example: I think our relationship is taking time away from my studies. I enjoy our time together but I have begun to worry about my grades. I need to figure out how to balance our relationship while always maintaining my grades. > Assertive Listening as a Skill: prepare → listen without getting defensive listen → give the other person your full attention when it's their turn to talk ask for clarification if needed so there is no confusion on what either of you are saying acknowledge → make it clear to the other person that you have heard and understand what they were saying understanding doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with them *assertive style is not always the most productive means of communicating, but is needed for a healthy relationship (don’t have to be assertive all the time) >Validation communicating to another person that you understand their experience in that moment does not mean that you agree (though you can), but that you can see things from their perspective AND that you understand why they feel the way they do can encompass everything from a simple nonverbal message to a complete verbal message Why validation works in difficult interactions: it disarms the other person and decreases their defensiveness (when you are not defensive and validate the other person's feelings, they are more likely to calm down and have a real conversation rather than a screaming match) it opens the way for communication that focuses on solutions to the problems rather than the problem itself it soothes negative arousal (e.g increased heart rate, rapid breathing, anxiety etc) and calms the other person → leads to more rational conversation it builds trust that problems will not lead to the end of the relationship → can work together to fix a problem and move past it it enhances your own selfrespect and reduces regret for your own behavior ( you won’t become defensive and say things you don’t really mean) Week 4 Notes 2/1/2016 > Communication Climate: the emotional tone of a relationship between two people who are interacting affects how people feel and interact with one another creating constructive climates is a basic skill that influences the effectiveness of your communication with others in all contexts you should strive to create supportive climates that help to nurture and foster relationships → leads to the productive relationships > Levels of Message Confirmation: based on the work of Jack Gibb confirming communication: describes messages that convey valuing create supportive communication climates (GOOD) disconfirming communication: describes messages that show a lack of regard for the other person and the relationship as a whole create defensive communication climates (BAD) > Defensive and supportive communication Jack Gibb developed 6 pairs of defensive and supportive categories of comm behavior → he studied how these behaviors affect relationships and interaction outcomes Defensive: behavior which occurs when a person feels threatened or anticipates threat devotes a large amount of energy towards defending him/herself thinks about the following: how s/he comes across to others how s/he may impress others by escaping punishment and/or how they may avoid an attack all together these feelings/actions create similarly defensive behaviors in those around the defensive individual when a defensive atmosphere is created → we naturally fact in the same defensive manner → sets up defensive arousal (see below) interaction becomes increasingly destructive → nobody is being heard because nobody is willing to listen defensive communicators send off multiple value, motive and affect cues Defense arousal (increased heart rate, respiration, flushed face etc.) prevents the listener from concentrating on the message being said defensive recipients distort what they hear (may cause more arguments and more defensive behaviors) as a person becomes more and more defensive, they are less able to perceive the motives, values or emotions of the person giving the message. supportive communication decreases defensive behavior and defensive arousal which increases the person’s ability to accurately perceive the message. Gibb’s categories for defensive and supportive behaviors evaluation (judgemental delivery of a message → defensive) vs. description (factual delivery of a message→ supportive) control (imposing solutions despite the other person’s needs or opinion → def.) vs. problem orientation (collaborate to come to a solution to a problem→ sup.) strategy (planning ahead, manipulation of the other person to get your way that leads to passive interactions → def.) vs. spontaneity (direct, no agenda, just see how the situation unfolds→ sup.) neutrality (indifference to other person’s feelings → def.) vs. empathy (displays understanding of other person’s feelings→ sup.) superiority (focus on personal status→ def.) vs. equality (all parties have equal worth and say in the situation→ sup.) certainty (“my way or the highway” dictatorial, makes decisions based on personal thoughts alone→ def.) vs. provisionalism (flexibility, investigate multiple options for solving a problem, not a debate→ sup.) Gibb’s findings increased defensive behavior is correlated with lack of efficient communication the more ‘supportive’ the climate, the less confusion of the meaning behind a message as defenses reduced, the receiver becomes better able to concentrate on the content and cognitive meanings behind a message in every interaction, we make a series of choices: are we going to create more productive interactions? are we going to send messages of value and respect for the other person? are we going to escalate or diffuse the conflict? *These choices have real consequences for the state of the relationship and the relational satisfaction. Communication determines the type of relationship and the quality of communication determines the quality of the relationship >Prejudgment: the process by which you take in and interpret information about other people. (full description can be found on page 191 in Messages) >Perception: the active process of assessing information in your surroundings must be aware of your environment factors that cause perceptions to differ between people: physiology (e.g. good vs. poor hearing) past experiences and roles (e.g. whether or not you’ve experienced a similar situation) culture present feelings (e.g. in a good or bad mood) Perception process: Step 1: Stimulation select sensory cueswe only notice some of the sensory information we receive. Step 2: Organize selected cues we always place the sensory sues we notice into some sort of familiar pattern in order to “recognize” what we are sensing. Schemata (pattern recognition) is the name of the patterns we use to organize our perceptions * I will cover schemata later on in the notes Step 3: Interpret we typically give a name to the recognized perceptual pattern in order to understand the meaning of what we are sensing (within a culture) Interpretation: generalization: recognizing categories of similarity stereotyping: a generalization that is inaccurate (overgeneralization) attributions: explanations of why people do what they do. often depend on the communicated patterns and concepts, such as motive. Review: The most important difference between the transactional model of communication and the interactive model of communication is that the transactional model recognizes that each person in the communication process reacts depending on factors such as their background, prior experiences, attitudes, cultural beliefs and selfesteem. > 3 factors that affect Perception Emotion: mood affects what you notice about the world (e.g. if you’re in a bad mood you may view things more cynically) Motivation: if motivation is used in one context then it can carry over to the next situation (e.g. if you feel motivated to succeed in one class, that motivation can carry over to other classes) conscious motives (e.g. what is my goal?) Cognitive Structures Schemata: cognitive structures used to make sense of the world. Its information we already have→ shortcuts to make sense of the world (e.g. The letter game → got easier as you went on because you could predict what was coming and the letters began to have an overarching idea connecting them together) Principle of least effort: tendency to rely on preexisting concepts rather than specific details from current situation Social Cognition: process of using cognitive structures affects interpretation of meaning (e.g. whether or not a comment is rude or friendly guides actions (how should I act in this situation?) 2/3/2016 > Schemata that Define Roles and Relationships role schemata: represent rules, norms and behaviors in roles (e.g. the behavior of a student vs. the behavior of a manager) relational schemata: represent interaction patterns in certain types of relationships (e.g. the habitual way you act with your spouse vs. how you act with your parent) > The Attribution Theory concerned with how and why ordinary explain events they way they do Two main points: When we explain the behavior of others we tend to look for internal attributions (e.g. personality traits of the person being talked about) When we explain the behavior of ourself we tend to look for external attributions (e.g. outside factors our of our control that influenced our behavior) Scenario 1: Your friend gets fired. look into internal attributions like their personality → may conclude that your friend got fired because he is lazy Scenario 2: You get fired look into external attributions→ may conclude that your boss had too many expectations of you and that you never had a chance to make your boss happy because of her high demands Attribution Errors: 3 typical attribution Errors: Fundamental Attribution Error: when we tend to explain behavior to internal rather than external causes and the behavior was done due to the environment or other external attributions. → focus on the person’s character instead of their surroundings ActorObserver Error Selfserving Error: when we take credit for our successes (internal attribution), and blame our failures on other outside forces such as bad luck (external attribution) also tends to bias your perceptions of close friends and family members > Relational Dialectics *Review* relational conflict is a natural consequence of two people being in a close relationship Assumptions: conflict in relationships is bad → FALSE. conflict leads better communication in the future and leads to Week 5 notes 2/10/2016 > attachment theory overview: early relationships affect subsequent relationships general patterns and consistency of care and love between a caregiver and a child impact the way that the child thinks about intimacy and interacts within the world. there caregiving practices form patterns of attachment can influence us throughout our lifetimes as we interact with others including friends and romantic partners > Infant attachment styles Attachment theory suggests that one of three types of bonds can be established between infants and caregivers. the first is secure (produced by a responsive caregiver and results in a confident child who explores the world anxiousambivalent (produced by inconsistent care from a caregiver and results in temperamental infant) → infant cannot anticipate whether or not they will get cared for avoidant (produced by an undemonstrative and unresponsive caregiver and results in an undemonstrative and unresponsive infant). → child sees a world in that their needs will never get met >Adult attachment styles Attachment theory has been expanded to suggest that these styles of interaction between a caregiver and an infant impact a wide variety of future attachments with peers and romantic partners. The adult attachment styles include: secure: the individual is comfortable with both autonomy and intimacy development with other → sees a world where their needs will be met in their relationships preoccupied: the individual is very concerned and worried about the development of intimacy with other individuals throughout life→ worried whether they will meet people they can rely on or not dismissive: the individual dismisses the role of intimacy development with others→ don't find intimacy important and confused about people who do fearful: individual fears that developing intimacy with other people may ultimately be too high risk→ afraid to get close to people (even if they want intimacy) > Attachment anxiety and avoidance further research (Brennan) suggested that there are two influential dimensions with respect to adult attachment patterns 1. attachmentrelated anxiety people who score high on this variable tend to worry about whether their partner is available, responsive, attentive etc. people who score low are more secure in the perceived responsiveness of their partners. 2. attachmentrelated avoidance people who score high on this dimension prefer not to rely on others or open up to others people who score low are more comfortable being intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend upon them. *A prototypical secure adult is low in both dimensions *low avoidance and high anxiety= stalker > Attachment attachment theory is one of the most frequently utilized theories today that helps in understanding people’s variations in communication and the way they either approach or avoid intimacy development with others throughout life. > Culture and attachment research suggests that the strength a child places in their parental attachment bonds varies from culture to culture > Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) RAD is one of the few psychological disorders that can be applied to infants it was first mentioned in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIII) children affected by RAD exhibit an inability to form normal relationships with other people as well as impaired social development and sociopathic behaviors due to absence of secure attachment formation early in life the disorder may be caused by pathogenic care during infancy, including abuse and/or neglect, or it may be caused by frequent changes in a primary caregiver, as is often the case with children raised in institutions or foster care > Communication and attachment research also suggests that communication may be a catalyst for changing attachment styles and that the type of attachment you develop with a parent may be adapted as more negative or positive others interact with you as we age and experience subsequent relationship, we are able to develop new models for care and intimacy 2/17/2016 >What is a shared social space? in human society all ‘space is social: it involves assigning more or less appropriate places to social relations...social space has thus always been a social product’. Henri Lefebvre THIS is the place where THIS happens one way to think of shared social space is a kind of context where certain types of integrations might take place. examples: health and care facility Cameron workplace Tracy College Engstrom *within each of these settings, there are likely additional sun settings/contexts >These contexts are constitutive that is, it is our interaction (communication) that partly creates the context itself. how do you know you are in a meeting with a professor? how do each of you talk? what are you doing ? (what is your talk creatingproducing and reproducing) does it differ if you are petitioning for a grade change versus chatting about a student club/group? *it is the communication itself that creates these social spaces >Rulebound interaction and within these shared social spaces, we abide by specific rules of interaction who talks? when? how? about what? *having a student and professor meeting creates a professor meeting creates a professor and student meeting. The communication that takes place creates the thing itself. >Communication and reality traditional view: we use communication to describe a world of facts that exists independently from us, the observers constitutive view: we use communication to make sense of the world together in order to be able to exist and act together. constitutive view of communication: we, humans, create our own reality together by consistently applying language and other communication resources to our shared experience. communication is not a mere tool for expressing social reality but is also a means of creating it. Relationships, identities, and tasks are in the communication (“constituted by it”) rather than in the relationships or between two or more people (“containing it”) *SO, meaning does not exist solely between the two people in interaction. It is part of a larger social system...nothing really exists till we talk about it. >What does it mean to be part of a communication culture? we talk a lot about talk; talk informs and reflects talk; we tend to believe that it is always good to talk it out or talk about it; our communication affects our communication (both ways) because we are so focused on tlk and communication, it seems natural to judge talk as “good” or “badless good” most of aspire toor believe we should aspire to be better communicators so we are highly receptive to expert advice on the matter. > Communication culture and Deborah Cameron “a culture obsessed with communication and the skills that it supposedly demands” (p.64). “the mundane social activity of talking...has been redefined as a set of skills requiring effort and expert guidance to master” (p.64). the rise of communication culture: normative ideas about communication → communication experts experts → communication as a set of skills/key to happiness → commodifying communication > Selling communication expertise how is communication expertise being sold? communication skills/principles? actual communication in actual contexts? communication and becoming a better person? qualifications? >Origins of communication culture economic (rise of service jobs in the West) → branding if there is no “thing” we are producing, then what is our business? dissolution of traditional societies → the self as a “reflexive project” (“personal growth”) traditional societies stay in one place your whole life among people who have known you from birth the dissolution of these traditional societies→ we continually have to reinvent ourselves Thus, the self becomes a “reflexive project” (Giddens) >Selfreflexivity Having an ongoing conversation with one’s whole self about what one is experiencing as one is experiencing it. to be selfreflexive is to engage in this metalevel of feeling and thought while being in the moment The strength of being reflexive is that we can make the quality of our relationships better at that time in that encounter, without having to wait for our next interaction. living in a communication culture heightens our awareness of how we ought to communicate, how we “ought” to communicate and behave in interactions. reflexivity increases our awareness of the consequences of not abiding by socially constructed rules and norms of interactions. when we are self aware of our incompetence and the ways that affects others and our relationships, we can adjust our behavior. > “Good communication” and therapy talk: speak for yourself don't judge others on their views listen to others with an open mind respect and affirm others’ feelings don't tell other people what to do clarify above all (“keep clarifying”) small talk, chitchat pave the way toward “good conversations” >Basic tenets of communication culture communication… ...is important, it can be a solution to social problems ...can only be done “right” with the help of expert advice about skills → the magical power to influence ...must be evaluated (people need to be trained) ...must be regulated/standardized in institutional settings → branding >What is the problem? the dominant “communication skills” model… ...has very little to do with actual communication (there is not one “right” way to communicate) ...can serve to hide asymmetrical power relations (e.g., “be nonjudgmental” and to “co operate”) ...leaves the meaning of “effective” communication and related “skills” vague/ambiguous→ assessment can be meaningless 2/22/2016 >Metaphor a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. metaphors compare unlike things (e.g., workplace bullying) to better understand or known entities (e.g. war, nightmare) and provide verbal images of emotional experiences this compact, vivid shorthand has the power to translate meaning and feeling into something we might more easily understand (make sense of). metaphors provide people with a way to express aspects both of themsleves and of situations they may not be able to express analytically and/or literally. metaphors that emerge in everyday talk provide a vivid way of thinking and seeing and serves as linguistic steering devices that guide both thinking and actions “He’s the angry parent and I'm the scolded child” how does the use of “parent and child” drive behaviors, feelings, reaction? > Denotative Hesitancy metaphor analysis is especially worthwhile when used to examine topics, such as adult bullying, that are in a state of “denotative hesitancy” when we name an issue we give it legitimacy that it did not have before the “naming”. Naming is a social process that is actively deliberated. When we fail to name an experience for what it is (bullying) we are displaying a hesitancy to identify something i don't know what this is, but it feels like____ often, it is something we did not anticipate feeling or experiencing in this specific context (social space) emotional abuse in my marriage seual harrassment from my boss alienation from my athletic team >Framing in the study of communication, framing is selecting and highlighting some facets or issues and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution Entman, 2004 example: ‘you see this as a problem, but I see it as an opportunity’ *Framing is always from a point of view, and may be controversial Eamples: abortion: “Life” v. “choice” afghanistan: “quagmire” v. “fighting terrorism” interpersonal conflict: “you started it” v. “no, YOU started it” workplace harassment: “bullying” v. “teasing” >Sensemaking and intersubjectivity meaning depends on experience sensemaking depends on our interpretation of that experience meaning is subjective (individualwe often do not agree on the meaning of words, behaviors, experiences) Intersubjectivity: when my interpretation and meaning match your interpretation and meaning we share meaning is we can anticipate each other’s reactions (intersubjectivity meaning Pierce, founder of modern semiotic theory I am not surprised by your behavior. Your behavior and communication make sense to me in this circumstance (social space, context) problems arise when we can't or don't see the same behavior, communication,event in the same way >Sensemaking the process by which we give meaning to our experiences tied to information we have access to and receive and how we interpret that information sensemaking in the eye of the beholder, but is also influenced by larger socila systems (and contexts) >Tracy et al reading What is the communication problem? because bullying at work is experienced by 2530% of US employees and affects 1 in 10 workers currently, Tracy et al wants to explain how communication is used to makesense of the feelings experienced during the bullying (p.149) results: workplace stress decreased productivity higher medical bills potential lawsuits >Two connections to communication: 1. complaints about bullying often dismissed as “weakness” or “making big deal out of nothing” communication silences those who suffer social world being built: the workplace is where only the fittest survive the bully’s perspective dominates >Making sense of experiences how does this relate to communication and shared social space? metaphors help us understand context by symbolically placing us in another context (it was work but it felt like a war zone) metaphors say more in one word than hundreds of other words >research question: What does workplace bullying feel like?/ What types of metaphorical language do participants use to describe the emotional experience of bullying? taking an inductive approach to research often leads to us amending our RQ what do I have? what is interesting about it? what does it tell me about the experience of this population? >sensemaking and work life expectations and work as a social space (context) this is what work is like this is what happens here this is how we talk about it this is how we behave productive, teamwork, respect… how do we explain experiences that fall outside of these expectations? what words (symbols) do we use? and why? and why reluctant to tell stories that fall outside of expectations? distancing? highlights non normative reality of situation? >Bullying creates a new kind of social interaction reminiscent of schoolyard anticschildish, unfair, no rules or help “bully” used to define the people who don't play by the rules childhood experience adopted by adults to make sense of their experience but shouldn't schools also be a “safe” social space with rules that prevent this behavior? 2/24/2016 >communication as constitutive Comm previously thought of as transmission of information New models of comm view comm as constitutive of social world, comm shapes our social society Constitutive: making a thing what it is, having the power to establish something Comm constitutes organizations Like the senderreceiver model, we often view organizations as “containers” of comm The old way of thinking of this is that organization is a container and comm is its content Constitutive view of comm Organizational comm scholars now argue that organizations are made of communication Organizations only exist through comm Material “stuff” exists, but is given meaning by comm “It is in the interactive exchanges of everyday life that the systems of organization are both realized, and its structure reinforced and perpetuated” (Taylor, 2000). When we communicate, we create/recreate organizational norms Why does this view matter? Organizations are not neutral structures, they are communicatively created Organizations include power, resources, and strategies >Comm and workplace bullying Tracy et al. gives examples of metaphors used in workplace bullying These examples matter because they constitute the situation They become how the target sees the situation Different metaphors give the target different options For example, even naming it “bullying” highlights the perpetrator’s role in the abuse, allows to victim to recover their own sense of value Example: metaphors of the bullying process Bullying as a battle Target must fight for what is right Gives target some control, but also promotes retaliation Bullying as a nightmare Things are unreal and don't make sense Target has no control Bullying as torture Target should go numb to cope with trauma Undesirable effects on work performance Why study organizational metaphors? People should consider how metaphors constrain and/or enable them Understanding metaphors can help organization understand how victims feel Bullying leads to burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or a negative shift in responses to others, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment (Tracy 2008) Abuse harms organizational productivity High rate of turnover Less productive communication at work 2/29/2016 >Engstrom reading How we talk about experiences influences and is influenced by societal change This is a difference in how comm scholar (versus a sociologist) would explore a social phenomenon Are societal changes reflected in media representations of the college experience? >Campus life in movies: Example Then: Animal House released in 1978 but was meant to depict 1962 Women on campus in the 60s were still a minority Women often depicted as attending to earn MRS degree Now: Today, women outnumber men in college enrollment Are women now more often depicted as being serious and highachieving students? Do women in the film still engage in mostly stereotypical “feminine” behavior? *Comm scholars regularly explore issues related to representation of identity So, we get ideas about what “normal” is (i particular social spaces contexts) from a variety of sources Conklin argues that Animal House changed the expectations firstyear college students had of the college experience (including appropriate and acceptable behavior) *Key concepts: Gender v. sex Masculinity v. femininity Gender as performative Speech community Speech code Communicative competence >What is a man? What is a woman? Sex: biological features (physical fact) Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women >What is masculine? What is feminine? Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women Gender: what various social groups know to be a recognizable man/woman (human/social fact) Comm scholar Julia Wood attempted to answer the question, “What does it mean to us as individuals to grow up feminine or masculine in presentday America?” What does research have to say about these experiences? >Feminine 1. Appearance still counts: women are still judged by their looks. Desirable= pretty, slim, and well dressed 2. Be sensitive and caring: BE NICE, deferential, and helpful. Care about and take care of others 3. Negative treatment by others: Women are more often targets of sexual assault, are more likely to live in poverty, and more likely to face bad job salary discrimination 4. Be superwoman: you must have it all. It’s not enough to be a homemaker, you must also have a career and be a great mother 5. There is no single meaning of feminine anymore. No matter what you do, you will be applauded by some and criticized by others. >Masculine 1. Don’t be female: do not act, look, think, or feel like a woman or a girl. Do not show sensitivity or vulnerability 2. Be successful: achieve status. Don’t just be goodbe better and more powerful than your peers. Be a good provider. 3. Be aggressive: you will be rewarded for being a daredevil and a roughneck. Take a stand; don’t run from confrontation. Be tough. 4. Be sexual: interested in sex at all times. Have a number of sexual partners. Sexual conquest is a cornerstone of masculinity 5. Be selfreliant: don’t need others. Depend on yourself. Take care of yourself. Rely on yourself. >Gender as Performative How do we “do feminine” or “do masculine”? Speech Dress Appearance Language Nonverbals Behavior And so on.. *Most of us have been socialized to understand that masculine and feminine traits and behaviors are and how to appropriate and perform them >Gender as Performative (in Engstrom’s article) Men performances of hegemonic masculinity include aggressiveness, toughness, lewdness Within the college context, women can also reinforce hegemonic masculinity Seeking relationships only with “strong men” Leaving men’s problematic practices unchallenged when they reference alcohol usage to explain another practice (fighting, destruction of property, rape) >Engstrom cont. To understand human/social facts we have to looks at how they appear in conversation What kinds of speech codes shape how people talk? Speech code: rules for producing culturally recognizable , appropriate speech >Engstrom’s Communication Problem The perception of college drinking is that the problem is the alcohol consumption itself. Engstrom wants to explain how certain habitual ways of speaking normalize collegeage drinking and justify bad choices Data show that students’ patterned ways of speaking especially about drinking, mitigate problematic student behaviors. Although such mitigating statements are, at times, by themselves problematic, they (re)produce a much more troubling masculinity. Engstrom’s theory Shifts the focus from how we can stop binge drinking on campus and asks instead: “How do students, through everyday talk, collectively make sense of these actions?” >How is this related to shared social space? Speech codes are created and recreated in particular speech communities. Speech communitya cultural group that has shared rules of speaking and interpretation of speech performance Understanding of what is normal or acceptable (i.e. the rules of drinking culture) is learned and practiced through social interaction (i.e. talking about drinking, and actually drinking) >Engstrom’s Findings Students adhere to the cultural patterns of speaking regarding alcohol references, which have at least four identifiable rules. If you are part of this particular speech community, you likely know the rules (speech codes) >4 Identifiable Rules Rule #1: Accept references to alcohol “as is” Rule #2: Validations of references to alcohol Rule #3: Refer to alcohol positively Rule #4: Referencing alcohol should point to normalcy >Rules in action Alcohol use excuses behavior that, in any other context, would be seen as antisocial and dispreferred Urinating in public Vandalism Sexual misconduct “But I was drunk!” >Communicative Competence If you know the rules, you can participate without incident in the communicative event Engstrom did not understand the rule about not asking for specific details (like how much someone drank) This marked him as communicatively incompetent in this context It also marked him as someone who was not part of this particular speech community (college age students discussion drinking and drinkingrelated behavior) >Practices that reinforce hegemonic masculinity Men engage in more aggressive, violent, and risktaking behavior “That's just how they are” Talking about this behavior in this way and then using alcohol consumption to excuse it only reinforces it as acceptable gender behavior >Dominant view: students drink too much, and they often engage in misconduct as a result Engstrom: this is a misrepresentation of what actually happens In talking about alcohol consumption, students create a “natural” relationship between excessive drinking and misconduct (“yes, I did that, but I was drunk”) >Engstrom conclusion People use human/ social facts about masculinity (and femininity) to accomplish social goals through communication (such as “being cool”) Engstrom: not all collegeage males enact (or support) the dominant type of masculinity Many collegeage women enact (or support) the dominant type of masculinity >Communication and social change Constitutive view: change the way people talkchange human/social factschange (social) reality Engstrom: change the way students talk about alcohol, they will be less likely to engage in (or support) drunken misconduct
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'