Chapter 5 (Unit 8) - Communication Flashcards
INTERPERSONAL GAP
- Interpersonal gap = disconnect between what the sender intends to
communicate and the effect of the communication on the perceiver - Sender
– Private knowledge of what they wish to convey
– Must be encoded into verbal & nonverbal actions
– Various factors may interfere—skill, inhibition, mood, distractions in the
environment - Recipient
– Decode sender’s actions
– Potential interference—skill, biases, mood, distractions in the envt
– Interpretation (again private)
RELATIONAL CONSEQUENCES
* Interpersonal gap may contribute to frustration & dissatisfaction in
relationship
– In unhappy couples, intent is not necessarily more negative—but impact is
(Gottman et al., 1976)
* Communication shapes how (and whether!) relationships begin, how they
unravel in the end, and everything in between
- Ironically, this gap may sometimes
appear more frequently in close
than casual relationships (Savitsky
et al., 2011)
PERSPECTIVE TAKING
- For successful communication, need to recognize that others do not see the
world exactly as we do
– Differing knowledge, expectations, motivations, visual perspectives - Skill that is developed over time
– Young children do not distinguish between what they know & what others
know - E.g., poor performance on Director Task
- What changes with age?
- Still show egocentric bias even as adults
– E.g., overestimate extent to which others share our attitudes & feelings
(false consensus effect)
– Use our own knowledge as guide to others’ knowledge
– Overestimate extent to which our internal states are accessible to others
(illusion of transparency) - Become better at effortfully correcting initial egocentric interpretation by
taking into account difference between self and other’s perspectives
DUAL-PROCESS MODEL
(EPLEY ET AL., 2004)
- Stage 1: automatic, effortless default (leans egocentric)
- Stage 2: effortful correction
- Differences between children & adults on Director Task:
– Adults make fewer mistakes (although still make some!)
– But do not differ in tendency to look at egocentric object - Adults no less likely than children to consider the egocentric object, just
more likely to correct
COROLLARIES
* Egocentric biases are increased
under cognitive load (Epley et al.,
2004)
– Distractions, fatigue, stress
* Motivation can decrease
egocentric bias
– But lack of motivation can
increase it
GAPS IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS
- So why are we sometimes more egocentric when communicating with close
others than with strangers? - Inclusion of other in self (Aron et al., 1991)
– May overestimate extent to which close others share our perspective
(Savitsky et al., 2011) - Assume that stranger’s perspective is different & pay more attention
- But ”let our guard down” when it comes to close other’s perspective
– E.g., less correction on Director Task when with a friend vs. stranger
GAUGING & COMMUNICATING
ROMANTIC INTEREST
- Strong approach-avoid conflict in relationshipinitiation contexts
– Want to get closer to partner, but don’t want to be
embarrassed or hurt
– 88% of Ps report avoiding the “are we more than
just friends?” conversation (Vorauer & Ratner, 1996) - Social norms against being too direct (Douglas, 1982)
– Do not want to impose on potential partner - Rely on less direct & efficient methods instead
– Trying to reduce uncertainty - Trial intimacy moves = escalate physical or psychological intimacy to see
how the other person responds
– Escalating touch/proximity = move closer, see how the other person
responds
– Reciprocity = self-disclose, do they reciprocate the disclosure? - Diminishing self = making self-deprecating
comments in the hope of reassurance
– Maybe you want to talk to someone else here?
– You probably don’t find me very interesting - Withdrawing = testing to see whether partner will
sustain the interaction - Hazing = testing to see whether target will provide
some favour or service at cost to themselves - Make approach in indirect, ambiguous way (partner must infer meaning)
– E.g., ”doing anything Friday night?”
– Allows one to “save face” - Communicate respect for partner’s autonomy & lessen sense of obligation
– Hedges to avoid assumptions - “If you want…”
– Communicate that you do not want to impinge - “I know you’re busy…”
PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE
- Thus, may approach target in a roundabout way (plausible deniability)—or
maybe just choose to wait - Might not realize that prospective partner is doing the same thing, for the
same reasons - Pluralistic ignorance = occurs when you observe others behaving similarly to
you, but conclude that the behaviour reflects different underlying feelings &
motivations
– Recognize influence of social inhibitions on one’s own behaviour (e.g., fear of
social disapproval, embarrassment) but not others’ behaviour
VORAUER & RATNER, 1996
* Over 75% of Ps report that fear of rejection has prevented them from pursuing
a romantic relationship
* But less likely to believe that potential partners had been inhibited by fear of
rejection
* Attribute own inaction to fear of rejection, others’ inaction to lack of interest
SIGNAL AMPLIFICATION BIAS
- May systematically overestimate how much interest our (often very tentative)
signals convey
– Expect that target will take into account the inhibitory forces acting on our
behaviour (augmenting principle)
– But target does not have the access to our internal states that we do
(illusion of transparency) - And, as we saw, we generally underestimate how much other people fear
rejection
VORAUER ET AL., 2003
* Anxiously attached individuals overestimate interest conveyed by their
romantic overtures
– Feel especially inhibited and so are especially likely think that they look
inhibited to others
– Expect recipient to augment the signal—which doesn’t happen
– Bigger gap between behaviour & metaperceptions (regardless of the actual
level of behaviour)
* Temporary increases in fear of rejection (e.g., reflecting on previous rejection
experience) have same effect
RISKY COMMUNICATIONS
* Not just relationship initiation or “defining the relationship” moments
* Could play a role any other time there is heightened sense of vulnerability
(e.g., conflict, expressing hurt)
– Overestimate warmth conveyed by any (potentially invisible) positive
overtures à sense of hurt, lashing out
* May help explain why rejection sensitivity is associated with lower relationship
satisfaction (Downey & Feldman, 1996)
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
- Not just what we say, but also what we do
– Gestures, posture, facial expressions, tone of voice, touch, physical
appearance, etc.
– Basically, everything other than actual words
FUNCTIONS
* Providing Information = nonverbal information can be informative for
making inferences about sender’s mood, intentions, traits, meaning behind
their words
* Regulating Interaction = subtle nonverbal cues allow people to take turns in
a conversation smoothly
* Defining the nature of the relationship = nonverbal actions express intimacy
and carry signals of power and status
* Interpersonal influence = nonverbal information can be used to influence
someone else
* Impression management= nonverbal behaviour can be used by an individual
or a couple to convey a certain image of the self or the relationship
FACIAL EXPRESSIONS
* Evidence for universality of emotional expression (Ekman et al., 1969)
– Collected 3, 000 photographs of people portraying anger, disgust, fear,
happiness, sadness, & surprise
– People in Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, & the US asked to identify the
emotion
– 70-90% accuracy rate (much higher than chance)
* Evidence for universality of emotional expression
(Ekman et al., 1969)
– Isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea living in
preindustrial, hunter-gatherer-like conditions (no
exposure to Western media)
– Able to recognize Western emotions with above
chance accuracy
– Reverse true as well—Americans able to
recognize emotions displayed by tribe members
* Cross-species similarity in emotional
displays
– E.g., chimps show threat displays
similar to our own displays of
anger
* Congenitally blind people express
emotions in the same way that
sighted people do (Tracy &
Matsumoto, 2008)
FUNCTIONALIST VIEW
* Functionalist view of emotion = emotions do
something (adaptive response to environmental
challenges)
* One of those functions is a signalling function
– Smile = can signal positive affect, affiliation
motive, serves attachment function (think of
baby smiles)
– Shame = appeasement, de-escalation of
conflict, solicitation of help & cooperation
EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION
* Cultural variation in emotional expression
– Expressions of shame are universal, but more pronounced in collectivistic vs.
individualistic cultures
* Display rules = culturally specific rules that govern how, when, and to whom
people expression emotions
– Can intensify (exaggerate), de-intensify (minimize), neutralize (poker face),
mask (cover with another expression)
* May attempt to control facial expressions for various reasons
* Not always successful—cues of inauthenticity, microexpressions
SOCIAL GAZE
- Rich source of information about mental/emotional state
- Signals attention & interest
– May not be entirely under our control—
e.g., pupil dilation in response to
emotional and sexual arousal (Bradley et
al., 2008) - Used by perceivers to evaluate sexual
interest (Lick et al., 2016) - Can promote social bonding
– Mutual gaze increases feelings of attraction & love
(Kellerman, 1989)
– Increases self-disclosure (Croes et al., 2020) - High openers—individuals who are good at
eliciting self-disclosure—communicate more
interest and attentiveness through gaze & other
channels (Purvis et al., 1984)
– May facilitate approach in relationship initiation
context by reducing uncertainty (Croes et al., 2020) - Helps regulate interactions
– Lets us know whether someone is open for approach
– Provides feedback on how message is received (e.g., do they understand
me? Approve or disapprove?)
– Helps negotiate turn-taking - E.g., tend to look at partner less when speaking (vs. listening)—shift gaze
back to partner to signal end of turn - Communicates intimacy
– Lovers spend more time gazing at each other - Communicates dominance
– Normally, look at partner ~40% of the time when speaking, ~60% when
listening
– Reversed for powerful, high status individuals (Koch et al., 2010) - Higher visual dominance ratio = % looking while speaking / % looking
while listening
SOCIAL TOUCH
- Possess finely tuned tactile communication
system - Communicates emotion (Hertenstein et al.,
2006)
– Can decode anger, fear, disgust, love,
gratitude, sympathy through touch
– Can also decode these emotions by
watching others communicate through
touch
SOCIAL TOUCH & INTIMACY
* Can infer couples’ level of intimacy from touch
– Duration, body part (touch to more vulnerable body parts considered more
intimate)
* Quantity of touch increases as relationship emerges, peaks in intermediate stages
of dating, declines in first year of marriage (Hernstein, 2011)
– Happily married couples use more intimate touch than less happy couples
(Beier & Sternberg, 1977)
* Can signal care, affection and concern
– Can therefore be considered a nonverbal form of responsiveness
* Increases sense of intimacy (Debrot et al., 2013)
TOUCH & ATTACHMENT
* Important means through which partners
regulate each other’s emotions
* Contributes to sense of security, boosts
positive affect, alleviates pain, stress, &
psychological distress (safe haven, in
attachment terms)
* Signals the “all-clear” to the central nervous
system, downregulating metabolically
expensive stress responses and reducing
threat vigilance
- Animals
– Social grooming in primates reduces physiological (e.g., heart rate,
glucocorticoid levels) and behavioural (scratching, yawning) markers of
stress; attenuates heart rate acceleration after encounter with dominant
conspecific - Humans
– Touching or holding a loved one’s hand reduces physical pain, neural
activation in response to threat of pain, hormonal stress response - Avoidantly attached individuals engage in less touch (less comfortable with
intimacy) - Are they indifferent to the effects of touch?
- Positive association between touch & well-being regardless of level of
avoidance (Debrot et al., 2020)
– Lack of touch mediates relationship between avoidance & lower well-being - In general, nonverbal cues of affection may be particularly beneficial for avoidants
(Schrage et al., 2020) - Tend to be distrustful of others; nonverbal communication perceived as more
trustworthy than verbal
TOP-DOWN INFLUENCES
* Hedonic quality of touch is moderated by contextual variables (topdown influence) (Ellingsen et al., 2016)
– Rate touch as more pleasant when paired with smiling (vs.
frowning) face
– Pleasantness of touch decreased when paired with disgusting
odour
– Heterosexual men rate sensual touch as less pleasant when led
to believe it’s delivered by another man; women more likely to
perceive touch from opposite-sex strangers as unpleasant
* To be perceived positively, intimacy of touch must not exceed
intimacy of relationship (particularly for women) (Heslin et al., 1983)
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
- Consider cues across all these different channels in tandem
- Combination of cues and broader context both shape perception (top-down
processing) - Let’s take the example of intimate gestures
INTIMACY
1) Signals of involvement (engagement, active participation)
* Proxemics (interpersonal distance): less distance, forward lean, matching
orientation & horizontal plane
– Increases liking for rewarding others, but decreases it for unrewarding
others
* Increased gaze
* Body movement & posture
– Animation (e.g., nodding, gestures), open body positions
* Facial animation
2) Signals of positive affect & affection (feelings of fondness & caring)
* Verbal: e.g., “I love you”
– Gauge sincerity by nonverbal cues
* Touch
– E.g., hugs, squeezing shoulder, arm around waist
* Facial expression
– Smiling, pleasant facial expression
* Paralanguage (vocal cues)
– Women perceived as more affectionate when speaking in high pitched
voice, men—lower pitch
- More than just combination of individual components
– E.g., involvement paired with negative affect may signal threat or dominance
instead of intimacy
– Involvement behaviour will not lead to intimacy if it’s not welcome - People judged more likeable when display consistency among verbal and nonverbal cues, as well as among various kind of non-verbal cues (behavioural
consistency) (Weisbuch et al., 2010) - Lack of consistency can come off as deceitful, impairs clarity
– Very small infants can only recognize facial expressions when accompanied
by vocalization (Walker-Andrews, 2008)—but having coherent information
across multiple channels is helpful regardless of age
DYADIC INTERACTIONS
- Behavioural mimicry = will often
synchronize nonverbal behaviour
(similar postures, mannerisms, facial
expressions, vocal cues, etc.)
– Helps regulate interaction
– Fosters liking (Chartrand & Lakin,
2013)
May see synchronization at neural level as well (Valencia & Froese, 2020)
– E.g., neuronal firing rate synchronized to speech rate of partner
– Increases liking and allows interaction to proceed more smoothly
* Video communication may feel exhausting because disrupts natural rhythms
and synchronization (Boland et al., 2022)
– Microdelays may delay synchronization
– Other factors: misaligned eye contact, fewer nonverbal body cues, selfconsciousness
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
- Are some people better reading nonverbal cues to close the interpersonal gap
than others?
– Miscommunication can stem from both failures of encoding and failures
of decoding - Can tease this apart by using behavioural observation (Noller et al., 1980)
ENCODING CARD
Situation You and your husband are sitting
alone on a winter evening. You feel
cold.
Intention A) You wonder if it’s only you who is
feeling cold or if he is cold too
Statement I’m cold; aren’t you?
DECODING CARD
Situation You and your husband are sitting
alone on a winter evening. You feel
cold.
Alternatives A) You wonder if it’s only you who is
feeling cold or if he is cold too
B) You want him to warm you with
physical affection
C) You’re feeling that he is being
inconsiderate in not having
turned up the heat by now and
you want him to turn it up right
away
- Women tend to be better encoders and decoders (Noller, 1980)
– Although not better at picking up on deception
– Even though tend to be more indirect than men (Leaper & Robnett, 2011) - Women particularly better at sending positive messages
- Men don’t realize that they are miscommunicating (overconfidence) (Noller &
Venardos, 1986) - Men perform particularly poorly in unhappy marriages, although other
research has shown that both men and women communicate more poorly
with each other when unhappy - Emotional intelligence = individual variation in ability to perceive,
understand, & manage emotions
– Tends to be higher in women (Brackett et al., 2005) - Expressivity = warmth, tenderness, compassion, sensitivity
– Traditionally considered “feminine” traits, and indeed generally higher in
women—but men can be expressive too
– Facilitate intimate communication—more comfort expressing feelings - Women tend to self-disclose more and elicit more self-disclosure
(although on structured lab task, all-male dyads benefit from disclosure
too)
SKILL OR MOTIVATION?
* In unhappy marriages, can
still communicate well with
strangers (Noller 1981)
– Recall that motivation is
important
* Men’s performance
increased when
motivation is higher,
although still not quite
as good as women
MOTIVATED COGNITION
* Recall that we are motivated to see our partners & relationships in certain
light (unit 2)
– Want to maintain the relationship à tend to see partner & relationship in
positive light
* Increased inaccuracy when confronted with relationship threat (Simpson
et al., 1995)
– Anxiously attached individuals more accurate in threat context
(hypervigilance) (Simpsons et al., 1999)
– Avoidant less accurate in general
- Recall that also want to hold favourable attitudes about ourselves
(justification motive)
– In a clearly troubled relationship can still uplift ourselves by blaming the
partner for faltering relationship - May help explain poor decoding in unhappy relationships (accuracy is
impeded by overly negative attributions)
