Principles of interpersonal communication and self-concept development

Interpersonal Communication

Communication skills are a bulwark to effective relationships and successful living. Effective communications are not innate attributes; they are acquired skills that can be honed to achieve not only successful dialogues, but meaningful connections between people. For the purposes of this paper, I have chosen to focus on the topic of communication in interpersonal relationships. I will then explain the principles and misconceptions in effective interpersonal communications, discuss the impact of gender and culture on interpersonal communications, and describe the process by which self-concept is developed and maintained.

"Communication" may be defined as "any process in which people share information, ideas, and feelings" that incorporates both the written and spoken word as well as "body language, personal mannerisms, and style" (Hybels & Weaver, 2007, pg. 8). While the communication process is made up of various elements (i.e. sender-receivers, messages, channels, noise, feedback, and setting) it is important to remember that communications are transactional endeavors that require continuous participative efforts and simultaneous engagements to remain effective (Hybels & Weaver, 2007). Further, communication may hinge on the communication "participants."

To better understand the nuisances of communication modalities, a review of some of the more prominent modalities may be in order. "Intrapersonal communications" involving only the individual self as both sender and receiver is a type of "self-talk;" a continuous thought-emotion dialogue that can dictate our communications and actions with others in the world. "Interpersonal communications," on the other hand, involve two participants or perhaps a few participants during informal communications (Hybels & Weaver, 2007).

"Small group communications" permit a group of people to gather for some purpose, and are contingent upon the opportunity for each group participant to participate in the group dialogue (Hybels & Weaver, 2007).

A recent addition to the gamut of communication modalities is the so called "Computer-Mediated Communication" whereby "a wide range of technologies that facilitate both human communication and the interactive sharing of information through computer networks, including e-mail, discussion groups, newsgroups, chat, instant messages, and Web pages" (Barnes, 2003, p. 4). These computer generated communications are becoming increasingly more frequent in our technological society. Hybels & Weaver (2007) note two distinctly important and unique attributes to Computer-Mediated Communication; it is both asynchronous and provides a type of social leveling that allows all individuals an equal position because social status cues are not apparent. Examples of Computer-Mediated Communication include communicating via text messages, through email, or social networking internet sites such as Facebook or MySpace.

While "Public communication" allows the sender to convey a message to multiple, perhaps many, recipients, the ability to check for understanding is limited; however, the communication signals a given audience might send back to the sender can be effective; a crowd full of yawning and sleeping members sends a distinctly different message than an audience giving a standing ovation or laughing at appropriate moments.

"Intercultural communication" involves the types of communications "whenever two or more people from different cultures interact" (Hybels & Weaver, 2007, pg. 19). Intercultural communication, like computer-mediated communications, is becoming ever more important in our increasingly diverse society and with our globally-based economy. Hybels & Weaver (2007, pg. 20) note the importance of intercultural communications because people from diverse backgrounds may have "different systems of knowledge, values, beliefs, customs, and behaviors." In other words, intended meanings and received messages can differ significantly because of cultural differences. Whatever form or modality communication efforts take, there are a myriad of factors that can affect effective communication strategies.

During communication, certain specific and assumptive roles identify communicating participants. However, the effects that our individual and collective communication efforts have on others can be highly influenced by individual and collective factors, some intrinsic, some external. For example, our individual self-concept and self-esteem levels, gender differences, and differing cultural expectations all affect how we communicate, both in "our heads" and with the rest of the outside world. Therefore, it is important to discuss how these factors can influence, both positively and negatively, our communication efforts. As stated, this research paper will focus on interpersonal relationships and describe the process by which self-concept is developed and maintained, explain the principles and misconceptions in effective interpersonal communications, as well as discuss the impact of gender and culture on interpersonal communications.

Interpersonal Relationships

As human beings, we are necessarily social beings. While there may be differing degrees to which an individual is social or "not social," people are primarily dependent upon one another for comfort, love, support and friendship. Campbell et al. (1977) found that most respondents believe it more important to have good friends and a good family life than to have financial security. Clearly our connections with others are important. Why, then, if social and emotional connections are so important, do we sometimes struggle for understanding, support and affection from others?

Principles and misconceptions in effective interpersonal communications

Interpersonal communications can be both rewarding and demanding. Hybels & Weaver (2007) suggest that interpersonal communications allow people to not only connect with others and develop an empathy response, but also to bolster mental and physical health. Effective communications in interpersonal relationships are contingent on some foundational principles, some of which have been misunderstood and misapplied; others seem counter-intuitive and not easily achieved. Some tenants for effective interpersonal communications might include proclamations to "treat each other with respect," "don't interrupt," and to "actively listen" to other's; to be an active participant in the communication process.

Forney et al. (2005, pgs. 209-10) write that "reflected appraisal is an individual's judgment of what others think of him or her" and that a "social comparison is made when an individual lacks objective information about himself or herself and forms self-judgment based on comparisons with others." Further, there is a "self-verification" process that people use in social situations to maintain their self-concept that derives from a self-confirmatory feedback loop gained in social interactions (Swann, 1983).

The impact of gender and culture on interpersonal communications.

Interpersonal communications do not exist in a vacuum; they are highly influenced on contextual and situational factors. Barriers to effective interpersonal interactions are significant. To overcome the potential for communication failure, it is important to recognize factors that can inhibit effective communication in interpersonal interactions. Among the more prominent barriers to effective interpersonal interactions are gender-based and cultural differences.

Cultural differences

Because interpersonal communications are, by necessity, dependent on subjective evaluations, gender-based and cultural considerations are essential. Hybels & Weaver (2007) observe that the process of listening can be affected by culture because of the potential for misunderstandings. Cultural differences do not necessitate language differences; people who speak the same language can often misinterpret intended meanings solely based on cultural expectations and customs. The potential for adversity is rife given the possible misinterpretations in communicating with culturally different people. To mitigate these potential misgivings, Hybels & Weaver (2007) correctly observe that "adjustments in vocabulary, grammar, or informality may need to be made" when communicating with culturally divergent individuals. Further, in an effort to facilitate effective communication between culturally different people, and perhaps even avoid potentially embarrassing, insulting, and wounding situations, effective communicators are well advised to have an empathetic response, an open mind and an accepting attitude toward those of other cultures (Hybels & Weaver, 2007).

Gender-based differences

Males and females, of all ages, communicate in fundamentally, and at times, frustratingly different, ways. Interestingly, men and women even listen differently (Hybels & Weaver, 2007). Also, gender influences the language style men and women utilize. As Hybels & Weaver (2007, pg. 124) note "Men are more likely to use report-talk, a language that maintains their status, demonstrates their knowledge and skills, and keeps them at the center of attention. In contrast, women are more likely to use rapport-talk, a language that leads to intimacy with others, establishes relationships, and compares experiences." This, in turn, can have a dramatic effect on communication goals, understanding needs, expressing feelings and a feeling of openness and connectedness between men and women.

Men and women gain and validate their self-concepts through different methods. The formation of the male self-concept is premised primarily on social comparisons, while the female self-concept tends to emphasize the importance of reflected appraisals (Hybels & Weaver, 2007). In fact, male self-confidence derives primarily from achievement and attainment, while female self-confidence is rooted in emotional connections and attachments to others (Hybels & Weaver, 2007). Clearly, then, the communication tools and skills that men and women utilize, while different, require some accommodations to obtain, if not understanding, compromise.

Intimacy

With all of these contradictory communication styles, it is a wonder that men and women continue to form intimate connections. While intimacy has been widely studied and researched, it is not, seemingly, easy to achieve. Hook et al. (2003, pg. 462) observe that "intimacy is a multidimensional concept consisting of several specific components: love and affection, personal validation, trust, and self-disclosure." Similarly, Sternberg (1997, p. 315) writes that "Intimacy refers to the feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships." While intimacy may seem, and perhaps be, the product or precursor of an elusive emotion, it does not come without pitfalls and drawbacks. Overcoming the barriers to effective communication in intimate relationships are as decisive as they are divisive. While men believe that "doing is showing" women tend to believe that "being is showing." These differences in emotive demonstrations require significant accommodations in both communication and self-concepts. Hence, a type of accommodation, "strategic fleixibility," may provide some foundation for communication endeavors to progress.

Strategic flexibility

Hybels & Weaver (2007, pg. 6) observe that "contributions of perception, self-concept, and emotional intelligence" foster a sense "strategic flexibility." It is this strategic flexibility, this ability to expand one's communication repertoire, that allows us as individual communicators, to select and utilize differing communication skills appropriate to a given interpersonal communication setting. Whether this be in our communications with ourselves, our colleques, our spouses, our children or people with differing cultural beliefs and customs, that allow us, as human beings, to be less rigid, less stringent, and improve upon our ability to foster and engender a more open, a more tolerant communication process, than what would otherwise be possible.

Conclusion

It is difficult to understand the vagaries and nuances of effective communication among all of the differing theories asserted in the field of "communication." However, I've found that, while I may not be the most effective, the most efficient communicator, I have developed skill sets, a type of flexible communication repertoire; a strategic flexibility that allows me to communicate with greater precision than I was able to prior to this course. While I understand that communication is a "two way street," I also appreciate the differences that exist in thought, opinion, and, perhaps most importantly, perception among those that interact with daily. With the knowledge that I have gained from studying the concepts in this class, I find myself more open, more receptive, and more empathetic than I thought I could be in my communications with both myself and others. This has allowed me to pursue and acquire more meaningful connections with others, and myself, than I thought possible.

References:

Barnes, S.B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the Internet. Boston: Pearson Education.

Campbell, a.; Converse, P.; and Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Forney, W.S., Forney, J.C., Crutsinger, C. (2005). Gender, Delinquent Status, and Social Acceptance as Predictors of the Global Self-Esteem of Teens. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33, 3, 208-219.

Hook, M.K., Gerstein, L.H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 462-472.

Hybels, S. & and Weaver, R.L., (2007). Communicating Effectively (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & a.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.