Chapter 9 presents some cold hard facts about the beginnings of relationships. One that I write about in web lecture four is the role physical beauty or attractiveness plays in whether or not you even decide to interact with someone. So much research has found that people who are viewed as more attractive are also perceived as smarter, friendlier, more competent--the list goes on and on. And what's even more distressing is that beauty is associated with good and ugliness is associated with bad. Just watch any movie or TV show--the "baddies" are almost always unattractive. In the web lecture I discuss the Batman movies and the association of disability with being bad or evil. Many other films and works of fiction follow this pattern--the bad person has some sort of disability that explains why the person is bad. Imagine the impact this has on persons with disabilities. For a useful counterbalance to this theme, view Murderball, a documentary film about rugby players who are quadriplegic.
I've done several studies focused on communication and disability, including two surveys of SJSU students with disabilities. I've also written about metaphors for disability, such as disability as medical problem, disability as culture, and disability as community. Those metaphors not only shape how you think about disability, but also how you interact with persons with disabilities. As one of my colleagues at Ohio U once told me, keep this in mind: persons without disabilities are TABs (temporarily able-bodied).
--Professor Cyborg
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
sex differences
There are several places in the text that discuss gender or sex differences in interpersonal communication, as with factors affecting self disclosure in chapter 7. In 2002, Julia Wood published an essay in the Southern Communication Journal titled "A Critical Response to John Gray's Mars and Venus Portrayals of Men and Women." You've probably heard of or read the book, which was quite popular.
Wood evaluates Gray's claims against scholarly research as well as everyday experience and finds those claims lacking the empirical evidence needed to support them. She makes three important points in her essay. First, differences between women and men are not innate or immutable. Second, socially constructed differences between the sexes do exist, although they change over time; consider women's and men's roles in the home and the workplace 100 years ago. Third, there are greater differences within each group in terms of how individuals communicate than between each group. That is, there is more variation among women in their communication and more variation among men in their communication than variation between women and men.
Wood's analysis is important because it tells us women and men can interact with each other collaboratively and productively. Miscommunication between women and men is not pre-determined. Although girls and boys may be raised to communicate in different ways, those differences are not innate. Which means we can change how we interact with each other. And that suggests we can find ways to communicate more effectively and reduce instances of miscommunication.
--Professor Cyborg
Wood evaluates Gray's claims against scholarly research as well as everyday experience and finds those claims lacking the empirical evidence needed to support them. She makes three important points in her essay. First, differences between women and men are not innate or immutable. Second, socially constructed differences between the sexes do exist, although they change over time; consider women's and men's roles in the home and the workplace 100 years ago. Third, there are greater differences within each group in terms of how individuals communicate than between each group. That is, there is more variation among women in their communication and more variation among men in their communication than variation between women and men.
Wood's analysis is important because it tells us women and men can interact with each other collaboratively and productively. Miscommunication between women and men is not pre-determined. Although girls and boys may be raised to communicate in different ways, those differences are not innate. Which means we can change how we interact with each other. And that suggests we can find ways to communicate more effectively and reduce instances of miscommunication.
--Professor Cyborg
Thursday, June 19, 2008
thursday, week 3
In discussing the notion of secrets in interpersonal relationships, Sabrina had positive things to say about the text, which I appreciated. Choosing a text can prove difficult. There are many interpersonal communication texts for lower division courses, but not many for upper division. This book strikes a good balance between theory/research and the practice of interpersonal communication. As Sabrina observes, the authors break down concepts into their parts or elements and give examples to make the concepts more concrete.
Boyd013 gave several good examples of excuses. You use them in an attempt to manage impressions others have of you. Generally you don't want to appear incompetent, stupid, uncaring, or any number of negative qualities, so you use accounts to try to spin your actions in a more positive way. That relates to Carmen's comments on embarassment in that you can also use accounts to avoid embarassment, and help others by smoothing over embarassing situations. Gian also blogged about embarassment and gave some suggestions for dealing with such situations.
In discussing self-presentation strategies, forrent36 focused on self-glorification. Although the dominant U.S. culture expects some self-glorification or self-promotion, too much reflects poorly on the self. For example, when interviewed on TV, professional sports players in team sports rarely take all the credit for themselves, even if they had a great game. They usually say something like, "I couldn't have done it without my teammates" or "It was really a team effort."
Chapters 6-8 provide key insights into how the self is constructed in and through communication with others. How you define yourself is grounded and reflected in your communication with others.
--Professor Cyborg
Boyd013 gave several good examples of excuses. You use them in an attempt to manage impressions others have of you. Generally you don't want to appear incompetent, stupid, uncaring, or any number of negative qualities, so you use accounts to try to spin your actions in a more positive way. That relates to Carmen's comments on embarassment in that you can also use accounts to avoid embarassment, and help others by smoothing over embarassing situations. Gian also blogged about embarassment and gave some suggestions for dealing with such situations.
In discussing self-presentation strategies, forrent36 focused on self-glorification. Although the dominant U.S. culture expects some self-glorification or self-promotion, too much reflects poorly on the self. For example, when interviewed on TV, professional sports players in team sports rarely take all the credit for themselves, even if they had a great game. They usually say something like, "I couldn't have done it without my teammates" or "It was really a team effort."
Chapters 6-8 provide key insights into how the self is constructed in and through communication with others. How you define yourself is grounded and reflected in your communication with others.
--Professor Cyborg
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
privacy and self disclosure
No comments on your blogs today. I'm on my soapbox.
The third edition of the text for this class addressed issues of privacy and self disclosure, but the fourth edition has much more in depth coverage. This additional coverage is one reason why it's worth purchasing the fourth edition. With some textbooks, the authors make just minor changes between editions. For this text, there were major revisions.
Although I don't agree with all aspects of Petronio's communication privacy model, I do like the attention the model draws to the notion of privacy (so a move away from complete openness being the best way to communicate) and the idea of negotiating those privacy boundaries. So the boundaries aren't fixed, but can be altered through communication in relationships with others. One weaknesses of the model is that power isn't addressed very well. For example, in families, parents have more power to negotiate privacy boundaries than children. Similarly, in organizations, supervisors have more power to set privacy boundaries than employees. For example, research my colleagues and I conducted on workplace surveillance found that organizations exert a great deal of power in defining the reasons for surveillance.
A story on NPR this morning on email surveillance got me thinking about privacy boundaries. The NPR host interviewed a woman whose company searches through the email of organizations' email (at their request) for legal reasons. We're talking about thousands, 10s of thousands, and millions of email messages. The bottom line: email never goes away and it is public. So all the negotiation employees may try out in managing privacy boundaries in the workplace will face the cold reality of email message longevity and accessibility.
As you read through the chapters, consider the ways in which the concepts and theories apply--or don't--to your interpersonal communication experiences. If a concept or theory doesn't seem to fit, that doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it may need modification or a different concept or theory may be a better fit.
--Professor Cyborg
The third edition of the text for this class addressed issues of privacy and self disclosure, but the fourth edition has much more in depth coverage. This additional coverage is one reason why it's worth purchasing the fourth edition. With some textbooks, the authors make just minor changes between editions. For this text, there were major revisions.
Although I don't agree with all aspects of Petronio's communication privacy model, I do like the attention the model draws to the notion of privacy (so a move away from complete openness being the best way to communicate) and the idea of negotiating those privacy boundaries. So the boundaries aren't fixed, but can be altered through communication in relationships with others. One weaknesses of the model is that power isn't addressed very well. For example, in families, parents have more power to negotiate privacy boundaries than children. Similarly, in organizations, supervisors have more power to set privacy boundaries than employees. For example, research my colleagues and I conducted on workplace surveillance found that organizations exert a great deal of power in defining the reasons for surveillance.
A story on NPR this morning on email surveillance got me thinking about privacy boundaries. The NPR host interviewed a woman whose company searches through the email of organizations' email (at their request) for legal reasons. We're talking about thousands, 10s of thousands, and millions of email messages. The bottom line: email never goes away and it is public. So all the negotiation employees may try out in managing privacy boundaries in the workplace will face the cold reality of email message longevity and accessibility.
As you read through the chapters, consider the ways in which the concepts and theories apply--or don't--to your interpersonal communication experiences. If a concept or theory doesn't seem to fit, that doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it may need modification or a different concept or theory may be a better fit.
--Professor Cyborg
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
self presentation
Early work in interpersonal communication posited a dichotomy between in person self presentation and online (also called viritual) self presentation. But more recent work recognizes that online and other new media venues simply give individuals additional formats to develop and present the self. Whether communicators present the self (selves really is the better term as there is no single self, but rather multiple selves) in person, via cell phone, in a web chat, or online discussion, all those activities are part of the self. (Unfortunately, the text for the class does a poor job addressing identity issues associated with new media.)
Sarina mentioned the dramaturgical perspective discussed in Chapter 6. This perspective views life as a series of performances and recognizes the interdependence of communicators in achieving self presentation goals. Facebook provides a good example of this interdependence, as part of an individual's self-presentation on Facebook is the person's friends and what friends write on the individual's Facebook page. Both Sarina and Carmen referred to presenting different aspects of the self to different audiences. Using different impression management strategies depending on the situation and relationship with other communicators is not only common but expected. My friends wouldn't expect me to present my "professor" self to them and start lecturing during a dinner party. Yet online self presentation can make impression management more challenging. For example, who are my audiences for Facebook? I have "friends" who are colleagues, students, coworkers, family members, social friends, professional friends--many different groups. How is each group interpreting my self-presentation strategies?
CGH blogged about ingratiation, or the strategies used to get others to like us. Generally, these are positive strategies, such as being friendly and complimenting others. But when used to manipulate, they are considered unethical. Rabbit Tale blogged about the concept of self disclosure in Web Lecture 3. When I was an undergraduate in the late 1970s, interpersonal communication courses tended to emphasize openness and complete honesty--no matter what the consequences. But communication scholars have learned that there are times when saying what you're thinking is not appropriate, and you might regret what you said later. In the web lecture I talk about reasons communicators might not want to disclose information.
The three chapters and web lecture for this week are especially interesting because they focus on the self and how the self is so intertwined in our relationships with others. Who you are influences how you communicate with others and how others communicate with you influences how you view yourself. In addition, how you view others influences your communication with them and how you communicate with them influences how they view themselves.
--Professor Cyborg
Sarina mentioned the dramaturgical perspective discussed in Chapter 6. This perspective views life as a series of performances and recognizes the interdependence of communicators in achieving self presentation goals. Facebook provides a good example of this interdependence, as part of an individual's self-presentation on Facebook is the person's friends and what friends write on the individual's Facebook page. Both Sarina and Carmen referred to presenting different aspects of the self to different audiences. Using different impression management strategies depending on the situation and relationship with other communicators is not only common but expected. My friends wouldn't expect me to present my "professor" self to them and start lecturing during a dinner party. Yet online self presentation can make impression management more challenging. For example, who are my audiences for Facebook? I have "friends" who are colleagues, students, coworkers, family members, social friends, professional friends--many different groups. How is each group interpreting my self-presentation strategies?
CGH blogged about ingratiation, or the strategies used to get others to like us. Generally, these are positive strategies, such as being friendly and complimenting others. But when used to manipulate, they are considered unethical. Rabbit Tale blogged about the concept of self disclosure in Web Lecture 3. When I was an undergraduate in the late 1970s, interpersonal communication courses tended to emphasize openness and complete honesty--no matter what the consequences. But communication scholars have learned that there are times when saying what you're thinking is not appropriate, and you might regret what you said later. In the web lecture I talk about reasons communicators might not want to disclose information.
The three chapters and web lecture for this week are especially interesting because they focus on the self and how the self is so intertwined in our relationships with others. Who you are influences how you communicate with others and how others communicate with you influences how you view yourself. In addition, how you view others influences your communication with them and how you communicate with them influences how they view themselves.
--Professor Cyborg
Friday, June 13, 2008
naming communication
When I was a master's student in communication at Central Michigan University I taught an introductory course that surveyed the communication discipline, covering topics such as interpersonal, small group, organizational, and public communication. The first day one student said, "I don't know why I have to take a communication class. I've been communicating all my life." By the end of the semester, he realized that he hadn't always been communicating very well, but more importantly, he learned to be more aware of his communication with others. Studying interpersonal communication theories and concepts gives you the language to better identify and reflect on your own communication. Sarina found this out when she read the listening chapters and applied the concepts to her workplace communication.
Rabbit Tale's entry about harmful listening took me back to my In Pursuit of Awareness class I took as an undergraduate. The professor promoted a completely "open" class where students would self-disclose whatever they were thinking or feeling at the time. But being "open" is not always appropriate. And sometimes what we're thinking in a precise moment isn't what we'll be thinking at the next moment. So blurting out whatever can be harmful and having to listen to those unmonitored thoughts can prove difficult. All communicators have a responsibility to consider the other. Revealing feelings and difficult emotions can prove therapeutic, but in the process we don't want to traumatize listeners.
Alexb blogged about empathy, noting how crucial it is to effective interpersonal communication, especially listening. Yet the chapter on social cognition suggests that we all have different cognitive structures for organizing interpersonal information. How is empathy possible? Shared schemata that stem from similar cultural and social experiences provide one avenue for empathy. And while total empathy isn't possible, listeners can still attempt to consider others' perspectives. Beatles123's entry about exhibiting patience with listeners is related to this notion of listening. A good speaker recognizes and takes into account the listener's perspective.
Kcee noted that implicit personality theory suggests individuals make their assessments of other quite quickly. Sometimes this can be advantageous, but oftentimes we jump to conclusions and make hasty generalizations about others that later prove to be false.
The blog entries this week are demonstrating the importance of reflecting on communication practices in everyday life by naming them. Naming these practices makes us more aware of our communication and impact on others' communication.
Tomorrow ends week 2. The weekends are busy days for me as I read and re-read all the blog entries and comments, so I often don't blog on the weekends. But I'll be online, answering your emails and reading your blogs.
--Professor Cyborg
Rabbit Tale's entry about harmful listening took me back to my In Pursuit of Awareness class I took as an undergraduate. The professor promoted a completely "open" class where students would self-disclose whatever they were thinking or feeling at the time. But being "open" is not always appropriate. And sometimes what we're thinking in a precise moment isn't what we'll be thinking at the next moment. So blurting out whatever can be harmful and having to listen to those unmonitored thoughts can prove difficult. All communicators have a responsibility to consider the other. Revealing feelings and difficult emotions can prove therapeutic, but in the process we don't want to traumatize listeners.
Alexb blogged about empathy, noting how crucial it is to effective interpersonal communication, especially listening. Yet the chapter on social cognition suggests that we all have different cognitive structures for organizing interpersonal information. How is empathy possible? Shared schemata that stem from similar cultural and social experiences provide one avenue for empathy. And while total empathy isn't possible, listeners can still attempt to consider others' perspectives. Beatles123's entry about exhibiting patience with listeners is related to this notion of listening. A good speaker recognizes and takes into account the listener's perspective.
Kcee noted that implicit personality theory suggests individuals make their assessments of other quite quickly. Sometimes this can be advantageous, but oftentimes we jump to conclusions and make hasty generalizations about others that later prove to be false.
The blog entries this week are demonstrating the importance of reflecting on communication practices in everyday life by naming them. Naming these practices makes us more aware of our communication and impact on others' communication.
Tomorrow ends week 2. The weekends are busy days for me as I read and re-read all the blog entries and comments, so I often don't blog on the weekends. But I'll be online, answering your emails and reading your blogs.
--Professor Cyborg
Thursday, June 12, 2008
cognition, communication, listening
Chapter 5 on social cognition is one of the most interesting chapters in the text for me. Much of my research is on the links between social cognition and message production and interpretation. In addition, my father is a psychology professor (now retired) and I was a psychology major before switching to communication studies, so my interest in human cognition started long before my interest in communication. The two are deeply intertwined--we can't communicate without thinking and how we think is grounded in our experiences with others.
Alexb discussed the importance of empathy, which is introduced in C. 4 on listening, but also plays a role in social cognition. For example, empathy is often a part of prototypes such as friendly and helpful and lack of empathy is typically associated with unfrlendly and selfish, as Alexb alluded to. Kcee's experiences provide a good link between cognition and listening and how the two influence each other. In addition, how we perceive people also impacts how we listen to them, and how we listen to others influences how they perceive us.
Amaja brought up the new COMM tagline: Listen • Speak • Engage. In the faculty discussions about the department's tagline, we spent some time trying to figure out which term should come first--they really happen all at once. The department's name used to be Speech Communication--note the emphasis on speech. And that emphasis is clear in course offerings not only in our department at SJSU, but in nearly all communication studies departments. Especially in the dominant American culture, speech is privileged over listening. Goofy talked about attributions, which structure our communicative experiences. How we explain what happens influences our response to a situation.
I grouped together Chapters 4, 5, 14, and 16 because they are highly interrelated, as you'll find out as you blog this week.
--Professor Cyborg
Alexb discussed the importance of empathy, which is introduced in C. 4 on listening, but also plays a role in social cognition. For example, empathy is often a part of prototypes such as friendly and helpful and lack of empathy is typically associated with unfrlendly and selfish, as Alexb alluded to. Kcee's experiences provide a good link between cognition and listening and how the two influence each other. In addition, how we perceive people also impacts how we listen to them, and how we listen to others influences how they perceive us.
Amaja brought up the new COMM tagline: Listen • Speak • Engage. In the faculty discussions about the department's tagline, we spent some time trying to figure out which term should come first--they really happen all at once. The department's name used to be Speech Communication--note the emphasis on speech. And that emphasis is clear in course offerings not only in our department at SJSU, but in nearly all communication studies departments. Especially in the dominant American culture, speech is privileged over listening. Goofy talked about attributions, which structure our communicative experiences. How we explain what happens influences our response to a situation.
I grouped together Chapters 4, 5, 14, and 16 because they are highly interrelated, as you'll find out as you blog this week.
--Professor Cyborg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)