Behind How We Communicate Essay Example

between close individuals) then they are involved in interpersonal communication.

Miller and Steinberg’s observations imply that there are three characteristics that are apart of interpersonal communication; Goal-Plan-Action Model, Functional/Hierarchical Approach, and Uncertainty Reduction Theory. In this paper we will discuss the theoretical approach of Goal-Plan-Action Model.

Goal-Plan-Action Model

The Goal-Plan-Action Model as described by Roloff and Anastasiou is one theoretical approach to defining interpersonal communication under the Psychological/Relational Perspective. This approach states that “in order for individuals to gain resources they must turn to others and especially intimates for support,”( Roloff & Anastasiou, 2001, p. 55).

An individual will have a goal in mind, plan to achieve said goal through a means of communication proven effective with a close individual, and set said plan into action. The individual influences the conversation in order to make goals achievable, however if there is a notable discrepancy the individual will change their approach in order to stay on track. Other secondary goals such as maintaining a good relationship with the receiver will also influence how the individuals relay their message.

I chose this theoretical approach because I work in management and am immersed in customer relations everyday. My job is to assess situations in which customers are unhappy, seeking something beyond policy, or interactions between my employees and customers. The company I work for has set their values and standards to benefit the experience of the customer so much so that in order to have successful interactions, we must go above and beyond the expected means of communication that you would find outside of interpersonal communication.

Many of our customers have been returning to our location for years and thus myself and the employees

get to know them on a personal basis. Goal-Plan-Action Model can be seen in action in the workplace when a regular customer approaches me with a complaint or request. In most cases the customer will explain the situation or the ideal outcome they are looking for, I will assess the situation at hand, and then decide the appropriate action that is to follow from our conversation.

The goal at the end of each interaction is to ensure that the customer is satisfied and will return after their experience here. A recent example of an interaction could be, “Hi, I received this as a gift and I do not like it.” “I’m sorry to hear that, do you happen to have a receipt?” If the answer is yes, the action to pursue would be to help the customer find what they were looking for or provide them with the equivalent store credit.

If the answer is no, I must inform the customer that I can only provide them with an even exchange given that there is no documentation present to prove the item’s value or purchase date. In this situation there are limited options due to the goal of wanting to provide excellent service. In both cases however I can affirm the customer’s needs.

Relational Growth and Decline in Interpersonal Relationships

Throughout our lifetime we will have many relationships with a variety of different people. What separates the relationships that go on to endure years together and those that are only fleeting? Over time romantic and platonic couples alike either move closer or farther apart as they move through stages known as the Knapp Relational Development Model. Developed by Mark

Knapp and Anita Vangelisti the model demonstrates the five stages in Coming Together, as well as the five stages of Coming Apart, (Trenholm & Vivian, 2011, p. 143). Knapp’s model breaks down the Coming Together stage into five parts: Initiating, Experimenting, Intensifying, Integrating, and Bonding.

The Initiating Stage is a couple’s first encounter and marks the beginning of their work towards creating favorable impressions. During this time there are limited topics of conversation as the couple will observe each others personality traits and willingness to continue future interaction. If things go well for the couple they will move onto the next stage: The Experimenting Stage.

In the Experimenting Stage the couple will begin to look for commonalities between each other, as a foundation for their relationship. Small talk is crucial at this stage as it opens doors for topics that have the potential to reduce any uncertainty that may be lurking. This stage often looks noncommittal and casual from the inside as well as the outside. According to the text “most relationships stop somewhere in stage two,” (Trenholm & Vivian, 2011, p.143).

This in colloquial terms is considered the “talking stage,” where a couple doesn’t define their relationship by any traditional means, but may associate themselves with only one person at a time in order to get to know them. This is very popular with college aged students, as many relationships don’t grow past this stage before one partner realizes that there are irreconcilable differences.

For those that do progress past the second stage they will find themselves in the Intensifying Stage. This is where the initial moves towards relationship fortification, using things like inclusive pronouns such as we

and us (Trenholm & Vivian, 2011, p. 143). The couple will become more familiar with each person’s verbal and non-verbal style of communications as well as using verbal shortcuts.

In the Integrating Stage the couple becomes “official,” in both their eyes and other’s eyes. Friend and familial circles begin to merge, they begin to speak in a similar manner, and shared places become “our place.”

The final stage in Coming Together is the bonding stage, which only occurs after tests have been passed. The tests include secrets, indirect suggestion, separation, endurance, and triangle tests. Once all are passed and both partners are sure of their feelings they have entered the bonding stage. Events here on out to legitimize the relationship include marriage or for friends; friendship jewelry.

On the opposite side of the scale we have the Coming Apart Stage where couples may make strides to move farther from intimacy. The stages include: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating stage. These stages often are an example of poor communication between partners. It is important to note that these are what generally happen over the course of relationships.

Couples in either the Coming Together or Coming Apart stage can change the course of their relationship if they so desire and are willing to work for it. It is also important that partners may not go through the stages at the same time which could cause minor obstacles for the couple as they try to navigate their place in the relationship.

In the differentiating stage (or first stage), the couple begins to notice bothersome things that were previously overlooked. Arguments contain non inclusive language like the pronouns “you,” and “me.” This stage

could begin due to a rushed bonding stage, where both partners were not given ample time to establish their relational culture (Trenholm & Vivian, 2011, p. 146).

In the second stage of breakdown known as the circumscribing stage where partners tend to restrict communication or cherry pick topics that may be explosive to too hurtful to discuss. Open communication between the couple begins to breakdown all together and the exchange on information decreases.

It becomes apparent to the couple that the relationship is failing when reaching the Stagnation Stage. This stage is marked by limited to know communication, time together is uncomfortable, and negative communication may be nonverbal. This stage feels like it will be short lived but a couple can be stagnant for years.

In the fourth stage known as the Avoiding Stage, the couple may choose to separate either physically or emotionally, or both. If physical isolation is not an option a partner may choose to live with a relative or separate themselves on a psychological level.

The fifth and final stage is the Terminating Stage, where [if] both partners are aware of their differences and inability to work through things they may choose to split amicably which could come as a relief. However, if both partners are not on the same page the termination phase will come as heartbreak.

Research and Mediated Relationships

Lastly, this paper will discuss the research done by Trenholm & Vivian (2011) on mediated relationships. For a long time interpersonal communication has only encompassed face to face (FtF) communication. As we advanced further into a society that spends every waking moment attached to some sort of technology, we must look at how media technology

can impact relationships.

Due to the development of technology like email, text messaging, (and currently) video chatting, it is now possible to form relationships from miles even countries away. Visual anonymity has become a big characteristic of mediated relationships. In today’s age the idea of physicality being taken out of the equation has led to shows like Catfish to expose people who use pictures that aren’t of themselves in order to pursue romantic relationships.

This is a contributing factor as to why a large portion of the population has a bad impression of online dating or dating without FtF communication. The text talks about this briefly when it discusses how disinhibitions can enforce the idea that one doesn’t have to be held accountable for their actions since it is online.

What I find especially interesting about this research is the hyperpersonal theory or the idea that people form interpersonal relationships online quicker than those who meet FtF, despite the lack of nonverbal cues. The theory explains because senders have the option to edit out all of the undesirable parts of their lives and only include what the other would find attractive it increases their appeal to the other person. They create high quality conversation and inhibitions are removed in genuine conversation (Trenholm & Vivian, p.158, 2011). With the addition of technology the public must exercise the same amount of caution online as they would in person meeting a stranger for the first time.

Conclusion

Interpersonal communication is the framework of language in which our society is built on. It is how we learn to trust or distrust one another, accomplish goals and expectation, as well as establish meaningful connections with

those in our social circles. This paper demonstrates only a portion of the large amount of research that has gone into studying how we create relationships and maintain them. I feel as though we could all practice better communication by taking the time to understand the research and science behind creating relationships rather than signing up for the latest subscription to Cosmopolitan in order to solve our love/friendship life difficulties.