Interpersonal Communication - Essay Example

? Interpersonal Communication College Interpersonal Communication Interpersonal communication refers to a mutual interaction among members to a small group, with its main features being personalized and individualized communication compared to communication in large groups. The level of interpersonal communication depends on the nature of a relationship between more than two people while the nature of communication has an impact on the quality of the relationship established (Dobkin & Pace, 2006). In other words, different people will communicate differently in differently relationships. Other factors such as gender and culture have an impact on interpersonal communication. Different cultures will have different norms governing relationships and the nature of interactions among people in a relationship. Moreover, women do have a tendency of self-disclosure in a relationship and are in most cases cooperative while men in most cases are expected to talk towards achieving their goals. Furthermore, while men have a tendency to talk about their intimate feelings with their close friends in relationships, men are more inclined to talk about external factors such as work, politics, plans among other issues (Dobkin & Pace, 2006). There are several theories that have been advanced in understanding interpersonal communications in relationships. These theories include Social Exchange Theory, Relational Dialectics Theory, and Self Disclosure and Social Penetration Theory. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and determine theories of interpersonal communications relate to one another and their effectiveness in evaluating and explaining interpersonal communication. One of the theories in understanding people’s behaviors is the social exchange theory (SET). The theory involves a number of interactions that lead to obligations to a second party in cases where there is interdependent interaction and contingent on the actions of the other party (Beebe & Redmond, 2010). An impotent tenet in SET is that relationships have to take time to evolve into loyal, trusting and mutual commitments. To achieve this end, the parties in the relationship are obliged to act according to certain rules of exchange. These are the guidelines in the exchange process in any relationship, which influence the level and detail of communication within the relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). One of the major rules in SET is reciprocity. In other words, both parties in a relationship have to give and take on a mutual consent basis for an interpersonal relationship to succeed. Reciprocity in SET explains the degree of interdependence that each party in a relationship is entitled. Strong relationships are mostly characterized by high levels of interdependence. Interdependence in this case is characterized by bi-directional transactions in that something has to be given, and something has to be returned by each of the parties (Beebe & Redmond, 2010). Such interdependence improves communication between parties in an interpersonal relationship. A common belief in reciprocity is that everyone will get what they deserve. In other words, after sometime, relationships will get to a point of equilibrium, those who are helpful in the relationship will get help in the future and those who are not will get punished. This explains the need for reciprocity in a relationship, which enhances communication as people struggle to maximize rewards from such relationships. SET involves certain exchanges that have to be observed in interpersonal relationships. These include the universalism vs. particularism ideology where the worth of a resource will vary depending on its source. In a relationship, money has no value but love has more value depending on its source (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The second property is the concreteness of an issue which refers to the tangibility of a resource. Non concrete resources will provide symbolic benefits, which have a much deeper worth than the objective value of the resource. The theory uses the cost-benefit analysis in explaining interpersonal relationships. This is because; the theory tends to determine the benefits that would be obtained from a relationship and the cost that would be incurred in reaping these benefits. Another theory that illustrates interpersonal communication is the dialectical relation theory. The theory has different components, one of which is certainty and uncertainty. Dialectical theory emphasizes that parties in a relation will need assurance and a predictable relationship, but too much predictability will be monotonous and bland (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). In other words, in communication, there is a need to spice up spontaneity in a relationship. Parties in a relationship will also need separateness and connectedness. In other words, though partnerships are meant to bond the parties together in increasing interdependence, a relationship becomes much better when the parties spend considerable time alone to cultivate individual identity. Therefore, unlike in SET where too much interdependence is a symbol of improved communication, in dialectic relations, too much of such interdependence is monotonous and the parties will need time alone to reflect on their identity (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). Communication in such relationships would be necessary to identify cases where each one needs time alone to reflect, which strengthens the relationship on the long run. The theory is based on the idea that people have to respond to the pulls in a relationship, but the pulls are unique to each relationship making it impossible to make any generations that would serve all relationships. As a result, communication between two people in a relationship is prone to change with situations and time between two extremes depending on the personalities of each party, explaining the need to have some time alone to reflect (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). The theory contradicts SET, which asserts that everyone gets what he or she deserves; the reciprocity of a partner falls such partner would be punished at the end. In Dialect relations theory, such times of low interdependence or lonely periods are necessary to improve communication and the benefits obtained from a relationship. For instance, when one party has a high level of self-disclosure that helps in achieving openness in a relationship, and then afterwards changes and becomes less talkative, the other party gets concerned, becomes uncomfortable, which makes them open up in the relationship. Such openness helps in improving communication between the two and spicing up the relationship. In other words, individuals have to spice up their relationships by overcoming a series of opposite, yet important contradictions (Beebe & Redmond, 2010) Social penetration theory is another theory that explains interpersonal relationship between more than two parties. The theories treat the relationship like an onion in that at first; the parties do not know each other but are only aware of the self (Chornet-Roses, 2010). The theory emphasizes the stages through which a relationship has to undergo to mature. Like an onion, as two parties get to peel off their outer layers, such people become closer and closer and are more likely to share intimately. Similar to SET, a relationship has to be rewarding to be sustained. In other words, relationships have to be based on reciprocity and each member has to give and take to ensure the relationship stands. Moreover, like SET, social penetration theory explains the need for self-disclosure. When two people meet, at first, they have to play safe with small talks and harmless jokes and have to follow the required norms. The individuals will then undergo a series of stages till they attain the final stage, which is de-penetration; the relationship slows down at this stage as the costs are outweighs its benefits (Chornet-Roses, 2010). Similar to Dialectic theory, the social penetration theory assumes a stage where a relationship will decline if one of the parties does not provide their input towards making the relationship last. In this regard, this theory is in line with SET, which requires reciprocity in a relationships and punishment work boring for a partner that does not invest enough in reciprocating. Reciprocity in self-disclosure ensures that self-disclosure increases in depth as the parties become vulnerable to one another along the stage of disclosure (Beebe & Redmond, 2010). The difference between this theory and the dialectic theory is that while dialectic theory suggests a period of loneliness as a good ingredient for a successful relationship, social disclosure theory does not envisage such a period of loneliness, unless at the de-penetration stage when none of the parties undertakes to revitalize the relationship. On the other hand, the social disclosure theory differs from SET in that the stages of disclosure are automatic and are bound to happen as people are close together. Furthermore, in social exchange theory, there is a give and take an approach to facilitate growth of the relationship to deeper levels. Complete self-disclosure, as a mark of intimacy, requires the willingness of an individual to reveal all information about them to a second party. Self-disclosure disclosures, when done in the right way, has the potential to increase intimacy, while increased intimacy will facilitate better self-disclosure, which opens up the vulnerable for possible manipulation, pain and disappointments in life (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Therefore, similar to SET and dialectical theory of interpersonal relationship, there has to be deeply integrated trust and loyalty for an individual to open up his/ her vulnerable spots. This explains relationships better in that it offers step by step process through which people establish a relationship from being strangers and explains the dynamics involved in self-disclosure, unlike other theories that do not answer questions of what happens after the relationship. There is a need to treat interpersonal communication as system approach and not a theoretical approach. This is because a system is a body of theories all explaining the same phenomena and which offers a broader and an inclusive approach in discussing the relationship. As the above theories indicate, there are overlapping areas in explaining interpersonal relationships and their occurrence. For instance while it is correct in social exchange theory that expectations make individuals remain in a relationship based on the benefits to be obtained from such relationships, the dialectical perspective emphasizes that successful interpersonal relationships must involve communication, which help in managing the contrasting tensions in relationships. In other words, in any relationship the dialectical and the social exchange theories do come to play at the same time towards ensuring a successful relationship. This suggests instead of considering interpersonal relationships theories alone in explaining how relationships are formed and maintained; there would be more value in considering a systematic approach to interpersonal relationships. References Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. A (1998). Guide to dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J. & Redmond, M. V. (2010). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Chornet-Roses, D. (2010). Using students' prior knowledge to teach social penetration theory. Communication Teacher, 24(3), 150-154. doi:10.1080/17404622.2010.490229 Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, S. M. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874. Dobkin, A. B. & Pace, R. C. (2006). Communication in a changing world. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, Ting-Toomey, S (1999). Communicating across cultures. NY: Guilford Press Read More