7.2: Interpersonal Communication

You have many relationships in your own life. You have friends from childhood, family members, and old school friends. Many of you have friends from your time in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or other organizational affiliations. You also may have newer friends or acquaintances that you’ve made in recent months, including ones you’ve only met recently, such as the members of this class. You will experience different forms of communication with all of these different types of people, in part due to your perceived levels of closeness with them. But there are other factors that distinguish your communication with them. How, where, and why you met someone will shape your relationship with them. Have you become friends with an old teacher or former boss or commanding officer? Does that impact your relationship and the way you communicate with them now? When you go back to your family home, does your communication pattern change? All of these relational dynamics play a role in interpersonal communication practices. Interpersonal communication refers to communication between individuals or very small groups.

Usually, interpersonal communication is viewed as happening in dyads, or pairs of two people. Very small groups such as small families or a small group of friends can also be viewed through the lens of interpersonal communication studies. We consider it interpersonal communication when the focus of the communication style is on the people involved as individuals, rather than as an organization, group, or team. Because of this, our focus in this field is on how individuals negotiate their identities, power relationships, personal needs, goals, and values with each other.

Perception in Interpersonal Messaging

Interpersonal communication is focused on interpersonal messaging, or how messages are transmitted between individuals in a dyad or in close relationships. A basic definition of interpersonal communication is "the process of message transaction between people to create and sustain shared meaning" (West & Turner, 2012, p. 7). Because of the focus on message transaction, rooted in the mathematical model or transmission model of communication (Shannon, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1963), the majority of Interpersonal Communication theories and methods come from the behavioral paradigm. However, the idea that interpersonal communication is a process implies avenues for change, both for the individuals involved in the communication, and in terms of the cultural and epistemological influences that impact those individuals, implying critical approaches (West & Turner, 2012). Further, the end result of the process implies an interpretive model of meaning production (Adler & Proctor, 2017). Therefore, while the majority of the history of interpersonal communication has dealt with behavioral models and theories, the influences of the interpretive and critical paradigms are strong in the field of study.

Interpersonal communication theories rooted in the transmission model often focus on the interaction stage or feedback aspect of that model. This is due to the need for interpersonal communication to respond to two-way communication between people, rather than the one-way communication implied by the original model. The interaction stage led to Wilbur Schramm's (1954) Interactional Model of Communication. Schramm was interested in the intended and unintended impacts of a message on the receiving individual or target. Because the target exists in society, there is a social interaction that occurs with every communicated interpersonal message. Societal and environmental roles can therefore impact the interaction, and thus the reception of the message, particularly if the contexts between the producer and receiver of the message are different (Adler & Proctor, 2017; West & Turner, 2012). Therefore, from an interactional perspective, interpersonal communication studies look at variable channels or avenues through which a message flows. These channels can be mediated channels, intrapersonal experience and identity constructs, and cultural and societal norms (Adler & Proctor, 2017; West & Turner, 2012).

The interactional model leads to the Transactional Model of Communication (Barnlund, 1970). This model is centered on the concept of a reciprocal relationship between message producers and receivers. In this model, senders and receivers are each both simultaneously receiving and sending messages. The model focuses on the presence of feedback in the communication process and how noise can influence both messaging and message feedback. Further, the transactional model references how messages build upon each other, so if you are participating in ongoing communication with another individual you can draw upon prior communication with that person to influence meaning production (West & Turner, 2012).

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): "File:Transactional comm model.jpg" by JasonSWrench is licensed under CC BY 3.0

How and where a message is impacted by noise that can disrupt the flow of communication is a major point of study. Consider the following:

In the linear model, the focus is on noise in the channel--what is known as external noise. For instance, loud music or too much cigarette smoke in a crowded room might make it difficult for you to pay attention to another person. The transactional model shows that noise also resides within communicators. (Adler & Proctor, 2017, p. 11)

All of us practice transactional communication every day; it plays a role in how we get to know one another and relate to each other. It occurs through both verbal and nonverbal communication practices, and involves sharing not only messages, but also systems of thought and values with each other. There are emotional contexts to interpersonal communication that cannot be avoided, because when we communicate with those closest to us is when we are the most likely to express our emotional concerns. Gender contexts also play a role, as our socially constructed gender roles dictate some of our communication styles in relationships. Also present in interpersonal communication is self-disclosure, or the ways in which we communicate a part of our identities to others.

Attribution theory (Heider, 1944, 1958) is one of the interpersonal communication models rooted in contextual characteristics we discussed in Module 2. This theory is centered on the internal and external attributions people exhibit during communication processes. It investigates how these become means of drawing inferences and conclusions about events and messages (Heider, 1944, 1958; Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). There are three components or steps in attribution theory: perception of the action or message, judgement of intent, and attribution of disposition (Heider, 1958; Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). People hold inherent biases based on previous experience that can predict attributions. Interpersonal communication is based on those predictions and influences how we perceive, judge, and attribute others--and how they do the same to us.

As both production of messaging and feedback are partially constructed by context, this model therefore leads to social constructionist approaches to interpersonal communication and to constructivism. Constructivism (Delia, 1977) in communication theory is focused on how different people exhibit different communication skill sets in social settings. The contextual aspects of theory's application to social settings are often discussed in terms of communication competencies (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). Constructivists assume people make sense of the world based on various constructs, similarly to how we rhetorically construct institutional and socio-cultural realities. Constructs become the core components of our understanding of the world, and how we communicate with that understanding in place.

As cognitive approaches to constructivism increased, models of message production within the theory also evolved. Cognitive approaches look at how speakers and receivers understand complexities within messages. One of the more commonly recognized of these looks at how an interpersonal message contains three elements: goals, plans, and action. Goals are what the speaker intends to accomplish through the message. Plans are based on the speaker's own memories and contextual leanings, and become the means of constructing the message. Action is rooted in how the speaker shapes the cognitive elements of the message to meet the cognitive needs of the receiver (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks 2018).

When the speaker and receiver share similar competencies and cognitive styles, communication is generally successful. While constructivism does not assume that this is a common occurrence, another body of communication theory looks at speech acts in specified contexts defined as speech communities. Groups with distinct characteristics, including an associated lexicon or speech pattern and symbolic characteristics associated with both verbal and nonverbal communication, function as speech communities.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): "United Colors of Furry Fandom" by GreenReaper is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Speech communities can create their own style of language, terminologies, performances, and communication styles, many of which conflict with broader social codes and norms (Chomsky, 1965). Speech communities tend to form through natural communication processes (such as fans of a sports team over time adopting similar behaviors, language styles, and ritual practices). The communication practices within that community are known as speech codes.

Philipsen (1975, 1976, 1997) rooted his approach to the theory on his ethnographic research observing different groups and different styles of communication. He discusses Speech Codes Theory as centered around answering four specific questions:

1. Do distinctive speech codes exist?
2. What vocabularies or ways of speaking hold meaning within the speech codes?
3. How can these speech codes be observed and cataloged by the ethnographer?
4. What impact does the speech code have in social life? (Philipsen & Albrecht, 1997).

Because speech code theory is rooted in cultural and subcultural understandings of meanings and values, the answers to these questions are rooted in cultural differences associated with various speech communities.

Self-Disclosure

We communicate self-disclosure as a process of getting to know another person. Self-disclosure is the process of revealing parts of yourself and your identity to others as you get to know them. For example, telling someone that you are a former Marine, or that you have been married twice before is self-disclosure. This is information that people have to learn about you as they get to know you, though it also includes characteristics that come up very quickly in a relationship, like being single or being tall.

We discussed two theories related to self-disclosure in Module 2. Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) (Giles, 1973) investigates how message producers alter or shift message construction to meet audience needs. These needs include attributions, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, experience, age, environment, and communication style. Producers accomodate their communication processes and styles in order to alleviate perceived discomfort and miscommunication (Giles, 1973). Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger, 1975) looks at changing patterns of communication as two individuals initiate and then continue through conversation. Uncertainty reduction argues that interpersonal communication between strangers is grounded by attempts for each member of the dyad to reduce discomfort in the communication process, thereby reducing uncertainty.

Consider the following image:

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): "Relative changes in precipitation" by GRIDArendal is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

We as humans seek to reduce our uncertainty about the weather so that we have a sense of predictability about what the immediate and longer-term futures will look like. This is a process of uncertainty reduction. When we communicate in dyadic relationships, we attempt to find ways of predicting the behaviors of the other member of the dyad, by revealing small things about ourselves through a process of self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is hampered by uncertainty between the two people in the communication dyad. To overcome this challenge, each half of the dyad can ask questions back and forth, and reveal small aspects in order to lessen the uncertainty factor. As communication increases, self-disclosure also increases, and uncertainty is reduced.

Another of the more common models we use to examine self-disclosure is Luft and Ingraham's (1955) Johari Window. This model frames communication practices in terms of what aspects of ourselves are self-disclosed to ourselves and to others (Carney, 1979). The theory poses four arenas or panes in the window of self-disclosure that occur when we present ourselves to others. In the top left corner of the model we have those aspects of ourselves that are known to the self and to others. These aspects would include surface details; things like job descriptions, dominant personality traits, physical descriptions, and typical behaviors. This arena is referred to as the open area.

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): "Johari Window" by laramilvain is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

The top right of the model represents the behaviors and aspects of ourselves that we don’t know about our own self. These can be things like how other perceive us in situations, such as being interesting or thoughtful, nervous behaviors, or levels of friendliness. This arena is discussed as the blind area or blind spot. On the bottom left is the part of ourselves that we are aware of but we hide from others, the hidden area. This includes things like personal fears, things we are embarrassed about, past failures, and stories and values we prefer to keep hidden from others. This is the quadrant where the most intentionally monitored self-disclosure occurs, as we pick and choose who to reveal things to, and when. This arena is labeled the façade because it is hidden by a mask. Finally is the unknown area quadrant. These are the aspects of our selves that we don’t know, and others don’t recognize in us. They are hidden from everyone. For example, before we gain any experience in the process, we can’t know how we will react in a crisis. Or how we may become after experiencing a trauma. This arena is reserved for those things that are not a recognized part of our current or past existence.

Another theory that discusses self-disclosure is based on self-disclosure preferences in terms of the notion of privacy. Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio, 1991) discusses how individuals regulate disclosing private information. The theory discusses how interpersonal communication uses boundaries established by the individuals in an interpersonal dyad around private information. How the dyads manage communication around those boundaries is examined, as well as what conditions are needed for disclosure of private information to occur.

Relational Communication Processes

Another way of understanding how communication works in interpersonal relationships is Baxter and Montgomery’s (1996) Relational Dialectics Model. Relational dialectics is defined as opposing and continual tensions that are normal in personal relationships. Relational dialectics are literally the choices and experiences that occur within a relationship. The term draws from Aristotle’s Dialectic, and is applied to refer to the nature of the people in a relationship and their philosophy or attitude toward the relationship itself. Baxter and Montgomery describe three dominant relational dialectics at work in all relationships.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): "relationships are complicated" by hojusaram is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

First is the autonomy-connection dialectic, which illustrates the level of individuality versus communal goals are valued by members of a relationship. Those who are more autonomous focus on maintaining their individuality in the relationship, while those who are more connected are more interested in merging identities.

The second is the novelty-predictability dialectic. Some people are more spontaneous by nature and value a lack of structure. Others depend on structure and stability. There needs to be a balance between routine and spontaneity for most people to be truly comfortable in a relationship. Finally, the openness-closedness dialectic refers to how much each person in the relationship self-discloses.

Baxter and Montgomery argue that it is necessary to find a balancing point on each of these scales, and that each relationship has to find its own position. We negotiate for these goals on a regular basis, and the bulk of our relational communication is designed to locate and ensure these balances. The process of relationship management is dependent on self-disclosure and recognition of the other person’s needs, and the only way to manage this is through communication.

As we self-disclose we build our relationships, whether for good or with bad consequences. This leads us to another model for understanding interpersonal communication, one that looks at how relationships progress. In 1984, Knapp and Vangelisti developed a model to describe how relationships pass through a series of stages or steps as the people in the relationship draw closer to each other and/or eventually pull apart. The model is generally referred to as Knapp's Relational Development Model because Mark Knapp developed the theory over a number of years and with a number of co-authors. This behavioral model can be applied to romantic or platonic relationships. It is often used to discuss how one or both members of a dyad may be ready to progress to another level, or to predict how a couple might continue to grow closer or apart in their relationship.

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): "Knapp's Relational Development Model" by Ronald B. Adler & Russell F Proctor II (2017)

This model is dependent, in part, on the levels of self-disclosure utilized by each party in the relationship.

Knapp’s Model has ten stages. The first five are the stages of coming together, and the last five are stages of coming apart.

Coming Together

1. Initiating:The beginning of the relationship. Making small talk.
2. Experimenting: Trying each other out. Pushing each other to see what works well between you.
3. Intensifying: Testing out labels. “I love you.” Using pet names.
4. Integrating: Becoming committed. Individuality fades and you.
5. Bonding: A formal declaration of the relationship. Creating permanence in the relationship.

Coming Apart

1. Differentiating: Revealing a lack of understanding between each other. Illustrating that you are no longer a single unit.
2. Circumscribing: Establishing boundaries for separate identities.
3. Stagnating: Getting bored with each other. Revealing a lack of interest in continuing to disclose.
4. Avoiding: Finding ways to avoid being in the same places. Refusing to talk to each other.
5. Terminating: Ending the relationship. Ending communication.

It is important to recognize that not all relationships go through all of these stages. Further, not all relationships that are coming together progress to a bonding stage—the majority of relationships seldom make it past the initiating or experimenting stages. Think of this as the "honeymoon stage" when everything is simple and seemingly easy as well as new and interesting. Not every relationship survives once the newness wears off. Similarly, not all relationships that come apart progress through all of the coming apart stages. For example, a divorced couple may stay connected for purposes of parenting or business needs. By measuring the stage at which a problem occurs, sometimes this can help lead to a solution by predicting what would be beneficial at that stage. The choices we make regarding self-disclosure and how much how much we want to reveal, and when, through communication to the other person are ultimately what causes us to progress, both positively and negatively, through these stages.

References

Adler, R.B., & Proctor II, R. F. (2017). Looking out: Looking in (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.

Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K.K. Sereno & C.D. Mortensen (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83-102). New York: Harper and Row.

Carney, T. F. (1979). Currents in organizational communication. Journal of Communication, 29(2), 200-211.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Delia, J. G. (1977). Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63(1), 66-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637709383368

Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15(2),87-109. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30029508

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2018). A first look at communication, (10th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358-374.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1985). Stages of coming together and coming apart. Interpersonal communication and human relationships (4th ed., pp. 27-58). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles.

Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1(4), 311-335.

Philipsen, G. (1976). Places for speaking in Teamsterville. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 15-25.

Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking ‘like a man’ in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22. doi: 10.1080/00335637509383264

Philipsen, G., & Albrecht, T. (1997). Developing communication theories. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3-26). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423 & 623-656, July and October.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

West, R. & Turner, L.H. (2012). IPC, Instructor Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.