Theories of Interpersonal Relationship
Theories. Simplest model of communication reflects the work of Shannon and Weaver. Added to the model the context of the relationship, and how that. In drawing upon communication theory to analyze and understand situations such edge into a clear and realistic framework” and emphasizes the relationships. Follow along with video lessons about key relationship theories in interpersonal communication. Use the quizzes that follow as self-assessments to.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: On becoming a person. Houghton Mifflin Company; A practitioner's guide to persuasion: An overview of 15 selected persuasion theories, models and frameworks. Patient Education and Counseling. Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages.
A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. The production of interpersonal influence messages. Goals-plans-action theory of message production: Developing theories of persuasive message production: Advances in communication theory. The handbook of interpersonal communication. Attaining goals through communicative action. Communication goals and plans.
Family communication about genetics. Patients' reasons for refraining from discussing internet health information with their health care providers. Enabling patients and physicians to pursue multiple goals in health care encounters: Describing a new conceptual model. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a development theory of interpersonal communication. Managing uncertainty about illness: Health care providers as credible authorities.
Applied Interpersonal Communication Matters: Communicating under conditons of ambiguity. Communication and uncertainty management. The patient self-advocacy scale: Measuring patient involvement in health care decision-making interactions. Communication in the management of uncertainty: Basic and Applied Psychology. Communication and problematic integration in end-of-life decisions: Dialysis decisions among the elderly. Coping with uncertainties in advance care planning.
From coping with life to coping with death: Problematic Integration for the seriously ill elderly. Spontaneous causal searching and adjustment to abnormal Papicalaou test results. Faith, hope and charity: An in-depth interview study of cancer patients' information needs and information-seeking behavior.
Western Journal of Medicine. From "reducing" to "coping with" uncertainty: Reducing uncertainty through communication during adjustment to disability. Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory.
Theories of Interpersonal Relationship
Greene JO, Geddes D. An action assembly perspective on social skill. Formulating and producing verbal and nonverbal messages: Contemporary theories and exemplars. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; Communication in medical encounters: Handbook of Health Communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts.
The McGraw-Hill Companies; Accommodation in medical consultations. Cambridge University Press; Intergroup communication between hospital doctors: Implications for quality of patient care. Watson B, Gallois C. Nurturing communication by health professionals toward patients: A Communication Accommodation Theory approach. Initial application and evaluation. An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.
Brown P, Levinson S. Some universals in language use. Bylund CL, Makoul G. Empathic communication and gender in the physician-patient encounter. Provider-patient dialogue about internet information: An exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. Doctor-patient communication about cancer-related internet information.
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology. Face and politeness in pharmacist-physician interaction. Confrontation and politeness strategies in physician-patient interactions.
Noncompliance, face-saving, and face-threatening acts in medical consultations. Placencia ME, Garcia C, editors. Research on politeness in the spanish speaking world. The management of bad news delivery in the discourse of stroke care. Aronsson K, Rundstrom B. Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality: On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse.
Aronsson K, Satterlund-Larsson U. Politeness strategies and doctor-patient communication. On the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. A theory of speech codes. Philipsen G, Albrecth T, editors. Explorations in social communication. Episode context This context simply refers to a specific event in which the communicative act is taking place.
Archetype context This context is essentially one's image of what his or her belief consists of regarding general truths within communicative exchanges. Furthermore, Pearce and Cronen believe that these specific contexts exist in a hierarchical fashion. This theory assumes that the bottom level of this hierarchy consists of the communicative act.
Next, the hierarchy exists within the relationship context, then the episode context, followed by the self-concept context, and finally the archetype context. Social penetration theory[ edit ] Main article: Social penetration theory Developed by Irwin Altman and Dallas Taylor, the social penetration theory was made to provide conceptual framework that describes the development in interpersonal relationships.
This theory refers to the reciprocity of behaviors between two people who are in the process of developing a relationship. The behaviors vary based on the different levels of intimacy that a relationship encounters. This analogy suggests that like an onion, personalities have "layers" that start from the outside what the public sees all the way to the core one's private self.
Often, when a relationship begins to develop, it is customary for the individuals within the relationship to undergo a process of self-disclosure.
These stages include the orientation, exploratory affective exchange, affective exchange, and stable exchange. Exploratory affective stage Next, individuals become somewhat more friendly and relaxed with their communication styles. Affective exchange In the third stage, there is a high amount of open communication between individuals and typically these relationships consist of close friends or even romantic or platonic partners.
Stable stage The final stage, simply consists of continued expressions of open and personal types of interaction.
Example- Jenny just met Justin because they were sitting at the same table at a wedding. Within minutes of meeting one another, Justin engages in small talk with Jenny.
Jenny decides to tell Justin all about her terrible ex-boyfriend and all of the misery he put her through. This is the kind of information you wait to share until stages three or four, not stage one. Due to the fact that Jenny told Justin much more than he wanted to know, he probably views her in a negative aspect and thinks she is crazy, which will most likely prevent any future relationship from happening. Altman and Taylor believed the social exchange theory principles could accurately predict whether or not people will risk self-disclosure.
The principles included, relational outcome, relational stability, and relational satisfaction. This theory assumes that the possible outcome is the stance that which the decision making process of how much information an individual chooses to self disclose is rooted by weighing out the costs and rewards that an individual may acquire when choosing to share personal information. Due to ethical egoism, individuals try to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain; acting from the motive of self-interest.
An example of the social penetration theory can be seen when one thinks of a hypothetical situation such as meeting someone for the first time.
The depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy a relationship has accomplished. When two individuals meet for the first time, it is the cultural expectation that only impersonal information will be exchanged. This could include information such as names, occupations, age of the conversation participants, as well as various other impersonal information. However, if both members participating in the dialogic exchange decide that they would like to continue or further the relationship, with the continuation of message exchanges, the more personal the information exchanged will become.
Altman and Taylor defined these as the depth and breadth of self-disclosure. According to Griffin, the definition of depth is "the degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individuals life" and the definition of breadth is "the range of areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place.
Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information 2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development 3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached 4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. Online communication seems to follow a different set of rules.
Rather than slowly disclosing personal thoughts, emotions, and feelings to others, anonymous individuals online are able to disclose personal information immediately and without the consequence of having their identity revealed. Ledbetter notes that Facebook users self-disclose by posting personal information, pictures, hobbies, and messages. The study finds that the user's level of self-disclosure is directly related to the level of interdependence on others.
This may result in negative psychological and relational outcomes as studies show that people are more likely to disclose more personal information than they would in face to face communication, primarily due to the heightened level of control within the context of the online communication medium.
In other words, those with poor social skills may prefer the medium of Facebook to show others who they are because they have more control. The reason that self disclosure is labeled as risky, is because, individuals often undergo a sense of uncertainty and susceptibility in revealing personal information that has the possibility of being judged in a negative way by the receiver.
Hence, the reason that face-to-face communication must evolve in stages when an initial relationship develops. Their theory became the foundation from which scholars in the field of communication approached the study of relationships. Ubiquitous communication[ edit ] The Palo Alto Group maintains that a person's presence alone results in them, consciously or not, expressing things about themselves and their relationships with others i. This ubiquitous interaction leads to the establishment of "expectations" and "patterns" which are used to determine and explain relationship types.
Expectations[ edit ] Individuals enter communication with others having established expectations for their own behavior as well as the behavior of those they are communicating with. These expectations are either reinforced during the interaction, or new expectations are established which will be used in future interactions. In this view, the relationship itself is treated as a separate entity: Relationship has identity Hecht Paradigm II views focus on interconnections and interdependencies that have created the Self.
In other words, we only have Self because we have Others who support that view. Our very definition of Self is cast within a broader framework of family, friends, lovers, work, and the broader culture. Paradigm II views of relationships are more common in collectivistic cultures.
Gudykunst and Kim note that groups i. In contrast to individualistic cultures, collectivistic cultures have fewer in-groups but these in-groups have a strong influence on individual behavior across situations. Thus, these collectivistic views are more in line with Paradigm II views of relationships that emphasize the Other and give the relationship itself pre-eminent status. It has been clearly demonstrated that females do value and monitor their relationships more than males.
Therefore, males might note the "suffocating" or "constricting" nature of a particular relationship and complain about the possibilities of making independent choices, while females might argue for more relationship rejuvenation work per se because they are more likely to hold a Paradigm II view of relationships. That is, females are more likely to treat the relationship as having a definable essence of its own that transcends the two individuals. The theoretical perspective of dialectics is reflective of Paradigm II views of relationships.
The dialectical approach to relationships stresses that phenomena that appear to be opposites are actually bound together, and that there is a dynamic interplay between such opposites Baxter People raised in individualistic cultures are often not sensitized to thinking in terms of the dialectics of opposites. An individualistic cultural frame promotes the view that elements are opposite and not connected, rather than seeing the dialectical interrelation of opposites.
A dialectical perspective emphasizes process and contradiction and lets us focus on the swings now close, now far that are present in all relationships. Figure 2A illustrates how the dialectic perspective aids our understanding of these relational swings within a Paradigm II view of relationships.
A male who notes the "suffocating" or "constricting" nature of a particular relationship and complains about the possibilities of making independent choices is illustrating the most frequently cited set of opposites in personal relationships, autonomy-connection or independenceinterdependence.
As noted above, males are more likely to hold a Paradigm I view of relationships and thus stress independence, while females are more likely to hold a Paradigm II view of relationships and thus stress interdependence. A dialectical perspective would allow both males and females to recognize the transcendent function of the relationship and recognize that natural fluctuations in autonomy-connection are normal, useful, and temporary processes.
Furthermore, Paradigm II views of relationships recognize that each individual has a stake in self-interests, the Other's interests, and the relationship as the interplay between the two. Understanding of Paradigm II views of relationships has been greatly aided by postmodern thinking. Postmodern writers challenge the notions of independence and individualism that dominate individualistic cultures and Paradigm I views of relationships.
Relationship Theory in Interpersonal Communication - Videos & Lessons | balamut.info
While Paradigm II views of relationships move us from emphasis on Self to recognition of Others in context of Relationship, these views of relationships are still bound in individualistic cultures by dualistic thinking.
Note that even Figure 2A, while moving away from dualistic thinking and incorporating dialectical thoughts, still clearly separates Self, Other, and Relationship. Our understanding of relationships often suffers from FIGURE 2A the exactitude of our factual language, our ability to speak from only one point of view at a time, and limitations inherent in two-dimensional models of the process!
The introduction of Paradigm III views of relationships is our attempt to stretch theorizing about, and understanding of, relationships.