Resources for Faculty: Interpersonal Communication
----------------------
Primer
Interpersonal communication, as the discipline of speech communication usually defines it, is one-on-one
communication. Most research on interpersonal communication deals with non-academic situations: communication
between friends, between spouses, between a healthcare provided and a patient. However, interpersonal
communication does occur in academe—for example, when a student talks with his or her adviser; when a
student talks with a tutor; or when a student seeks academic information by interviewing someone.
Factors That Complicate Interpersonal Communication
At first glance, this one-on-one communication might strike you as fairly simple. There are, however,
numerous factors that make it quite the opposite. I will talk about ten.
- The Six People Involved in Dyadic Communication. What I’ve called one-on-one is
really three-on-three. Each person has a self, a projected self, and a perceived self. For example, a brand
new instructor suffering from nervousness in a conversation with a department chair might think she/he is
projecting confidence whereas the chair is perceiving this person as arrogant and cocky. There are three
different people here. And the same is true on the other side of the conversation: there’s the real
chair, the person the chair is trying to project, and the person the chair is being perceived as.
- Content Dimension vs. Relational Dimension. All conversations exist on two
levels—what is said about the subject under discussion and what is “said” about the
relationship between the two people talking. Some communicators seem to pay more attention to the content
dimension; others to the relational.
- Gender. There are many differences between the communication behavior of those gendered
female and those gendered male. For example, those gendered male tend to pay more attention to the content
dimension of a conversation than the relational dimension; those gendered female, the opposite. In
conjunction with this difference, those gendered male see communication in instrumental terms—i.e. as
a means to get a job done—as well as in power terms—i.e. as a means of sustaining or wrestling
control. Those gendered female see communication in relational terms—i.e. as a means of sustaining
and developing relationships—and enjoy communication for its own sake.
- Power Distribution. A dyad—i.e. two people in conversation—may have equal
power. However, quite frequently, one is “up” and the other “down.” This imbalance
affects their interpersonal communication, for one speaks differently to one higher and one lower.
- Cultural Differences. A dyad may be from the same culture. However, if not, cultural
differences will affect their interpersonal communication. Proxemics is the study of how space is used in
communication. Some cultures—e.g. the Arab world, Latin America, southern Europe—expect there to
be very little space between those engaged in interpersonal whereas other cultures—e.g. Asia, India,
Pakistan, and northern Europe—expect there to be a lot of space. If an Arab is speaking with a Swede,
they will have to negotiate their very different senses of what amount of space is appropriate between
them.
Oculics is the study of how the eyes are used in communication. Again, there are cultures that heavily
use the eyes while speaking—e.g. the Arab world, Latin America, Greece; and there are cultures that
do not—e.g. northern Europe and the United States.
Cultures can also be sorted into “High Context” and “Low Context” categories. In
a high-context culture, a great deal is communicated non-verbally. Latin America, Africa, southern Europe,
the Arab world, and Asia fall into this category. In a low context culture, non-verbal communication is not
that important. The message is in the words themselves. Australia, the United States, Scandinavia, Germany,
and Switzerland are low-context cultures.
Finally, cultures can be distinguished by which how high they are on certain core values. Those who study
such matters often cite four such values: masculinity; uncertainty avoidance; authority; and individualism.
The U.S. culture, for example, is neither high nor low in masculinity; is relatively low in uncertainty
avoidance; is neither high nor low in authority; and is extremely high in individualism. This portrait is,
of course, a generalization about the mainstream U.S. culture. Not all members of it fit the generalization,
and there are several sub-cultures within the U.S. that do not fit the generalization at all. The important
thing for students is that they be sensitive to the cultural differences that might characterize a
particular dyad.
Two examples should illustrate this point. Let’s assume a member of the U.S. culture is in
conversation with a German. The U.S. speaker would be slightly more willing to speak about a matter even if
uncertain, and the U.S. speaker would place much more value on the individual. If the conversation were
occurring in a business context, these differences might result in some dissonance when the U.S. speaker
seems more concerned about his/her success than the company’s and when the U.S. speaker makes
assertions in areas where, perhaps, he/she ought to be less sure of things. Let’s assume a member of
the U.S. culture is in conversation with a Japanese person. The two speakers would value authority in much
the same way; however, the Japanese person would value masculinity much more and would avoid uncertainty
much more. The Japanese person would also value individualism somewhat less. The Japanese speaker then would
be inclined to offer some views (in areas of certainty) strongly and others views (in areas of uncertainty)
very hesitantly. This speaker might be difficult for someone from the U.S. culture to “read.”
- Personality Differences. It probably goes without saying that people are different for
reasons other than the culture they come from. Again, students need to be sensitive to these differences:
the person they are communicating with, even if he/she “looks” the same, may be quite different
in personality. A way to encourage students to develop this sensitivity is by having them take the
Myers-Briggs personality inventory. This time-honored instrument will tell them where they stand on four
continua: extroversion vs. introversion; sensing vs. intuition; thinking vs. feeling; judging vs. perceiving.
The definitions of these eight terms are not as self-evident as one might think, so anyone who uses or takes
the Myers-Briggs Inventory needs to look carefully at how the developers have operationalized each term. If
a student, for example, knows that he/she is extroverted, sensing, thinking, and judging, that student will
know that he/she will have communication “problems” one-on-one with someone who is, on any of
those counts, opposite. For example, the “judging” student would tend to make decisions rapidly
whereas the “perceiving” student would tend to delay decisions. Or, the “sensing”
student would think through a problem sequentially whereas the “intuitive” would proceed in a
more roundabout manner. The keys are for a student to (1) know his/her profile, (2) know that others are
different, and (3) be flexible as a communicator in one-on-one situations with people who, because of
personality differences, converse and think differently.
- Processing Errors. Even in a one-on-one conversation, a great deal of
“information” is coming at a listener—verbal information as well as non-verbal information.
Processing this information is not always easy. To facilitate processing, we tend to focus on some pieces of
information and ignore others. What drives this process is our desire for simplicity and consistency. We try
to put together a “neat” package that agrees with whatever else we think we know about either the
subject matter of the conversation or the person we’re conversing with. Well, things aren't always that
“neat.” As a result, the desire for simplicity and consistency can cause us to misunderstand the
person we are talking with.
- Willingness to Communicate. Research suggests that a person’s willingness to
communicate varies from context to context: a person willing to engage in public speaking may not be a
person willing to engage in interpersonal communication; a person willing to engage in interpersonal
communication with an acquaintance may not be a person willing to engage in such communication with a
stranger. An easy-to-use assessment instrument develop by James C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond (both
of West Virginia University) can provide students with seven contextual scores. (Copies of this instrument
will be on file in the Speaking Center.) Rather obviously, a person’s willingness to communicate
interpersonally will affect how successfully a student undertakes such a task. Also affected would be the
more willing person who is trying to engage the less willing in a conversation.
- Assertiveness and Responsiveness. McCroskey and Richmond have also developed an easy to
use instrument (available in Speaking Center) to measure how assertive a person is and how responsive a
person is. These are not polar opposites: one could be high (or low) in both. For the purposes of one-on-one
communication, a high score in responsiveness would be a real plus. However, a high score in assertiveness
might forecast problems. The assertive communicator might dominate the conversation so much that the
back-and-forth that characterizes most interpersonal communication is reduced.
- Talkativeness. A similar reduction in back-and-forth communication can result when one
of the two people in the conversing dyad is something of a “talkaholic.” McCroskey and Richmond
have (again) developed an instrument (available in Speaking Center) to measure how talkative a person is.
Characteristics of Effective Interpersonal Communication
All of these are factors that can complicate or interfere with interpersonal communication. All of them
can interfere with communication. Given how many factors there are, you might think successful interpersonal
communication is unlikely. Well, it’s not unlikely. It requires more work than one might think. When
it’s successful, it’s characterized by at least the following six behaviors. Students can be
profitably alerted to these behaviors.
First, effective interpersonal communication is characterized by empathetic listening. Communicators tend
to signal that they are listening non-verbally. Among the non-verbal signals an empathetic listener sends are
head nods, calm yet expressive facial movements, and spontaneous eye contact. An empathetic listener will
also—to the extent appropriate—engage in frequent touching behavior and sit close to the person
with whom he/she is conversing. The empathetic listener sends non-verbal signals with the whole body: a
relaxed but alert posture send the desired signal, as does positioning one’s body toward the other.
Second, effective interpersonal communication is characterized by decentering. Basically, the listener is
able to cease listening with his or her needs in mind and focus more on what the other is saying and why.
The listener thereby ceases being the center of the communication act as far as that listener is
concerned.
Third, effective interpersonal communication is characterized by self-disclosure. Whether we're talking
about the non-academic context of friends or the academic context of student and adviser, there should be
increasing amounts of self-disclosure the more the two converse. There are a number of ways of visualizing
what happens as a dyad speaks. One could, for example, graph disclosure (on the y axis) against time (on the
x). You would see the line representing disclosure hug the x axis for a while and then begin to shoot upward.
After a while, it would fall again and, then, level off. This graph suggests that there is, initially, a
hesitancy to self-disclose. Then, the floodgates open. Then, self-disclosure falls back to a moderate
level.
Or one could draw a pie with pieces representing different areas of one’s life. You would color in
a piece moving toward the pie’s center based on amount of self-disclosure. A dyad who know each other
superficially would be illustrated by a little bit of coloring-in in all pieces. A dyad where there has been
some self-disclosure would be illustrated by a fair amount of coloring-in, probably more in some pieces than
in others depending on the nature of the relationship. Communication between friends would not look the same
as communication between a professor and a student, although both would feature a fair amount of
self-disclosure.
Fourth, effective interpersonal communication would meet the inclusion, control, and affection needs of
the communicators. The members of a dyad will not likely have the exact same needs in these areas, but rare
is the human being who does not need to feel included, who does not want to feel in control of his/her life
and the direction of a conversation, and who does not want to feel liked. Interpersonal communication would
be deemed ineffective, for example, if a participant felt that he/she was “other,” was being
dictated to, or was disliked.
Fifth, effective interpersonal communication is characterized by frequent perception checking. A good
communicator will make sure he/she truly understands what he/she is being told or what he/she is extracting
from the non-verbal dimensions of a conversation. A good communicator will sometimes explicitly check
perception by asking questions. A good communicator will sometimes be more subtle—for example, by
making a comment that presupposes his/her perception and then gauging the accuracy of that perception based
on the other person’s verbal or non-verbal reaction.
Sixth, effective interpersonal communication is characterized by the use of confirming responses and the
avoidance of disconfirming ones. Confirming responses include acknowledging what the other has said,
clarifying it so that the conversation can progress, agreeing with it, and supporting it or the person.
Disconfirming responses include being impervious to what is being said or interrupting it, bringing up
irrelevant ideas or going off on tangents, and acting impersonally toward the other person.
Interviewing
Much of the this information on interpersonal communication is very useful in managing one’s
personal life, and you may well see how it is relevant to the relationships that exist in academe between
professor and student, advisor and advisee, tutor and tutee. But you may be wondering how interpersonal
communication might play a role in our classes.
One application is in interviewing, which can be used as an informal or a very formal technique for
gathering information. If students are writing a paper on the ‘60’s, they might find it useful
to interview people who were their age in that decade. If students are engaged in a research project on the
effect on television crime dramas on audience members’ perception of such matters as urban safety,
police competence, and the availability of justice, they might interview both a group that rarely watches
such shows and a group they have exposed to hours of such shows. In all likelihood, the interviewing in the
latter case will be more structured, more formal.
Almost all of the information on the complexity of one-on-one conversation and on the characteristics of
effective interpersonal communication is relevant to these interviewing situations. For example, the
interviewer needs to be aware of cultural differences should a subject not be from the United States, and
the interviewer needs to make sure he/she meets the subject’s control needs and uses non-verbal
communication that suggests empathy. Some more specific advice can be offered on interviewing, however.
It is important to establish a good climate for the interview. Non-verbal communication will play a major
role in establishing such a climate. So will what an interviewer says. A shrewd interviewer will use what
might be seen as “chit chat” to relax the person being interviewed as well as to establish some
kind of connection between the two people involved in this dyad. If the interviewer is being friendly, the
normal tension of the situation will almost certainly diminish. The interviewer can, in addition, reduce the
tension by sharing the purpose of the interview and assuring the subject that any information he/she
provides will be treated professionally.
This period of seeming “chit chat” cannot go on too long, for the interviewer does have a job
to do. Having a list of planned questions (not too few; not too many) should help the interviewer along.
However, the interviewer needs to be flexible in how he/she proceeds through the list. One needs to
“go with the flow,” but, at the same time, keep the planned questions in mind.
Questions should be neither too “open” nor too “closed.” An “open”
question invites the person being interviewed to talk. That’s good. However, if the question is too
“open,” then this person might proceed to offer a lecture of only limited usefulness. A
“closed” question invites a very brief answer. Such a question will not instigate a good
conversation; such a question will not elicit much beyond just that very brief answer. A few
“closed” questions may well be useful in the interviewer’s overall plan. However, most
questions should not be too “closed” just as they should not be too “open.”
An interviewer needs to manage time effectively. You want to get through all of the planned questions:
you may need to do so to have the data you need. You also want to leave a little bit of time to summarize
the interview. You want to end the interview by saying something like, “So, let me get all this
straight. You’re saying that….” Such a summary serves two important purposes. First, it
checks your perception of the communication that has occurred. Second, it assures the person you’ve
interviewed that you’ve understood him/her correctly and are, as a result, not going to inadvertently
misrepresent him/her.
Sample Assignments
This is probably the most difficult of the five areas of communication to come up with academic
assignments for - because we tend not to think of interpersonal communication as being academic.
You might want to consider, however, an interviewing assignment that asks students to role play. For
example, let’s say you’re teaching a social science class that deals with problems—
juvenile crime; anti-Arab prejudice; indifference toward voting; marketing a Mercedes mini-car. For such
problems, you could devise a handful of roles. For the first, you might generate the following list:
- The juvenile offender
- The social worker who has been assigned him/her
- A psychologist
- The juvenile court judge who heard her/his case
- The victim of his/her crime
- The juvenile’s single parent
- The juvenile’s younger sibling
- The juvenile’s teacher
In a class of 16, students 1-8 could role-play while students 9-16 serve as interviewers. Then, the roles
could be shuffled and students 9-16 could enact them with 1-8 being the interviewers.
In a humanities class, students could role-play the characters in a novel or a Biblical narrative. The
interviewing activity could be structured much the same way as with the juvenile criminal and those
connected in some way to him/her.
A Handout You Might Give Students
Interpersonal Communication
Factors that Complicate Interpersonal Communication
- Communication has a content dimension and a relational dimension; both are important.
- Gender: those gendered male tend to see communication in instrumental and power terms.
- Culture: proxemics (i.e. the use of space) vary from culture to culture; in addition, some cultures are
“high-context” and communicated a great deal non-verbally whereas others are
“low-context” and rely more on words.
- Personality differences (which the Myers-Briggs inventory can be give you a sense of) can create
interpersonal tension.
- As listeners process information, they strive for simplicity and consistency; they thereby may distort
messages.
- Willingness to communicate varies from person to person.
- Some people are simply more talkative than others.
Characteristics of Effective Interpersonal Communication
- Emphathetic listening
- Meeting the Inclusion, Control, and Affection Needs of the Two People Communicating
- Perception Checking
- Confirming Responses
Interviewing Tips
- Establish a good climate. (Keep in mind how important non-verbal communication is in doing so!)
- Have a list of planned questions (not too many, not too few).
- Ask questions that are neither too open nor too closed.
- Summarize the interview at its conclusion.
Evaluation Advice and Instruments
Interpersonal communication can be assessed using a two-column checklist. One that features space for
brief comments is especially useful—so that you’re not just making checks or assigning points.
The following questions would be ones you might want to include on such a list, with the last several
relevant only if the interpersonal communication “event” is an interview:
- Do the participants attend to the relational dimension of communication as well as the content
dimension?
- Do the participants strike a good balance between communication as instrumental and communication as
relational?
- Do the participants refrain from trying to control the communication?
- If cultural dimensions are relevant, do the participants appropriately adjust their non-verbal
communication behavior to accommodate the cultural expectations of the other person?
- Do the participants seem aware of their personality characteristics? Do they seem alert to the
possibility that the other person may proceed differently as a communicator (as well as a problem-solver)?
- Do the participants process what they are hearing well?
- Do the participants seem willing to communicate?
- Are the participants assertive but not overly so?Are the participants talkative but not overly so?
- Do the participants exhibit empathy towards each other as they listen?
- Do the participants seem to listen without being unduly focused on their own needs?
- Do the participants exhibit an appropriate degree of self-disclosure?
- Do the participants try to meet the inclusion, control, and affection needs of the other person?
- Do the participants engage in effective perception-checking behavior?
- Do the participants offer appropriate confirming responses to the other person as he/she speaks?
- Does the interviewer establish a good climate for a productive interview?
- Does the interviewer have an appropriate number of questions planned?
- Are the interviewer’s questions neither too open not too closed?
- Does the interviewer summarize the interview at its conclusion so as to check the accuracy of her/his
notes and assure the interviewed that he/she was understood?