Not Not Communicating by Michael Rabby – Page 4 – Making academic articles understandable since 2010

December 8, 2011December 8, 2011

The importance of security in young teenage boys and girls

classphoto courtesy of ctsnow By Guest Author Samantha Krause

I have often seen other people who do not have close relationships with their peers as weird, or just not sociable. However, it seems having a close relationship with my parents has strengthened my own, personal ability to have stronger relationships with my friends than others. We often do not think about how a person’s relationships at home can affect other relationships and aspects of that person.

In a survey of 223 sixth graders (109 girls) Dwyer and colleagues assessed their attachment, ability to adapt socially, and friendship quality off three basic tests in which they took in pairs:

Security Scale: the amount of security the child feels based on their own relationships with their parents at home.
Attributions and Coping Questionnaire: giving something/someone (in this case, the child’s friends) a reason for acting the way they do, and then deciding how to deal with the given situation.
Friendship Quality Questionnaire: evaluating the relationships the child shares with his/her close friends.

The results indicate that children with higher levels of security at home with their mother and father likely felt higher levels of security within their relationships with friends. Having high levels of security in the home also improved the reported self-esteem and self-confidence in a child, enabling them to be stronger individuals later in life. If they had a low level of security, they reported feeling sad and had a harder time building and sustaining lasting, strong relationships. Lower levels of security often lead to a greater chance that the child would develop negative coping strategies, such as revenge, emotional responses, and avoidance all together.

So, parents should try to create a positive chemistry in the house and raise their children in such a way that they feel a strong security in their relationships with their mother and father. Mother’s and the father’s should have individual relationships with their children. Since boys and girls react differently to each relationship, the importance of having a strong relationship and security with both parents individually is crucial. The stronger these relationships are the more likely the child will thrive in their other relationships as they get older. S/he will have a more balanced social life, as well as a healthy psychological well-being.

Dwyer, K., Fredstrom, B., Rubin, K., Booth-LaForce, C., Rose-Krasnor, L., Burgess, K. (2010). Attachment, social information processing, and friendship quality of early adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 27, 91-116.

October 10, 2011October 10, 2011

What communication values do men and women hold in their same-sex/cross-sex relationships?

By Guest Author Shea Chappel Male and female friends walking to beach

In the film “When Harry Met Sally,” Billy Crystal states that, “Men and women can’t be friends.” However, our own life experience tells us that this is not the case. Men and women are friends, and in a recent article Holmstrom seeks to understand more about these friendships and the communication men and women look for in both types of friendships, same-sex and cross-sex.

For this study, Holstrom surveyed 292 Midwestern students of varying races. She attempted to understand the relationship between the following:
·         –Same-sex friendships: friendships between people of the same gender
·         –Cross-sex friendships: friendships between people of different genders
·         –Affectively oriented communication: examples of this are comforting and listening skills. According to previous research, these skills are usually more valued by women and social science studies indicate that women are socialized to hold these skills.
·         –Instrumentally oriented communication: examples of this are persuasion and narrative skills. Previous research indicates that these skills tend to be more valued by men and that men are socialized to hold this set of skills.

Overall, Holstrom made a few interesting points in her study that tended to build on and support previous research of friendship communication. Her first finding indicates that both men and women rate affective communication skills in both cross-sex and same-sex friendships as more important than instrumental skills. However, the importance each group placed on affective skills differed, with women rating these skills higher than men. Third, Holstrom’s study indicates that gender of the friend may have an influence on communication values. The study showed that the participants rated affective communication skills as more important for female friends than male friends. Women in this study were also found to rate instrumentally oriented skills as more important in their male friends than in their female friends, but it should be reminded that overall, both men and women placed more value on affectively oriented communication across all of their friendships.

The most important thing I take away from this study is that in both same-sex and cross-sex friendships, affectively oriented communication is more highly valued by both men and women than instrumentally oriented communication. It is important to remember that in maintaining both types of friendships, one should make sure to employ affectively oriented communication. It is interesting that both men and women value this type communication, even though both groups tend to be socialized into one or the other. Previous research indicates that women tend to find same-sex relationships more rewarding than cross-sex friendships, and perhaps this is because females tend to get affective communication more from their fellow female friends than their male friends.
It is also notable that women looked to their male friends for instrumentally oriented skills and that both groups looked to their female friends for affectively oriented communication. I think this shows the importance of both types of friendships.

Overall, I think that it is important to keep in mind that people get different things out of cross-sex and same-sex friendships, but that each group looks for affectively oriented communication in all of their friendships.

Holmstrom, A. J. (2009). Sex and gender similarities and differences in communication values in same-sex and cross-sex friendships. Communication Quarterly, 57, 224-238.

August 2, 2011September 27, 2013

Forgiving your parents…

By Guest Author Juliris E. De La Rosa

When someone commits an act of betrayal, it goes without saying that the victim might start to reevaluate their relationship with the perpetrator. S/he might completely end the relationship or s/he might forgive the perpetrator.

This is not always easy when parent or parents commit an act of betrayal to their children. Children, including adult children, cannot easily abandon their relationship with their parents, and generally choose to go through the process of forgiveness.

When the adult child goes through the stages of forgiveness, their commitment (how close parent and adult child feel) trust (knowing that both parent and adult child can rely on each other) and relational satisfaction (how parent and adult child feel about the relationship) with their parents will change throughout the process.

In a study by Braun, Rittenour, and Myers, 61 adult children ranging from the ages of 18 to 64 were asked to write about a moment when their parents betrayed them. They saw betrayal as emotional or physical abuse, non-supportive behaviors like not accepting the adult child’s significant other, favoritism in the family, etc.

They note the three stages of forgiveness:

I. Impact – When the victim starts to wonder whether they deserved the betrayal in the first place. Along with that comes refusal to believe and accept the betrayal and a lack of emotions.

II. Definition – When the victims ask the perpetrator why they committed the act of betrayal in the first place.

III. Moving On- As the name suggest, this is where victims decide to let go of any negative emotions, feelings, and thought about the betrayal and move on with the relationship

Participants experiencing Impact try to avoid any type of communication with their parents. The first stage is where this is little to no commitment, trust and relational satisfaction resulting from the initial shock of betrayal. Participants in the second stage, Definition, wanted to know why their parents did such acts of betrayal. In the third stage of forgiveness, Moving On, participants wanted to move on with the relationship with their parents.

Participants felt different levels of commitment, trust and relational satisfaction during the three stages of forgiveness. As the next stage of forgiveness came, the levels of commitment trust and relational satisfaction increased.

There have always been studies about marital betrayals and friendship betrayals, but little exists on betrayals between parents and their adult children. Parent and adult child relationships differ from all the other types of relationships in the sense that you cannot choose who your parents are. When you are in a relationship with a friend or significant other, you have the option of ending the relationship if it is no longer in your best interest to stay in that relationship, whereas with your parents, this relationship has more permanence.

For that reason alone, we, as the adult children, should forgive them if they do indeed commit an act of betrayal. It is important for society to invest more time into parent and adult child betrayals so we can get a more in-depth look at what happens to a relationship that cannot be so easily broken forever.

Brann, M., Rittenour, C., & Myers, S. (2007). Adult Children’s Forgiveness of Parents’ Betrayals. Communication Research Reports, 24, 353-360.

July 6, 2011August 1, 2011

Who really values monogamy in a relationship?

By Guest Author Kelly Pullin

What if sexual monogamy wasn’t the only type of monogamy considered? Who is to say that lack of emotional monogamy isn’t just as detrimental to a relationship as lack of sexual monogamy?

Old picture of two cute dogs Schmookler and Bursi explored the gender perspectives about monogamy, surveying 53 women and 34 men currently in relationships. Their attitudes were measured on four dimensions: value of emotional monogamy, value of sexual monogamy, perceptions of monogamy as relationship enhancing, and perceptions of monogamy as a sacrifice. The results of each dimension influenced the satisfaction of one’s relationship. The results indicated that both men and women considered monogamy a relationship enhancer, but only men considered monogamy as some kind of sacrifice. Women were found to value both emotional and sexual monogamy more than men. In addition, they found that women were more likely to be unfaithful to their partners emotionally while men were more likely to be sexually unfaithful.

The main aspect to take away from this study is the statement that men and women who value both sexual and emotional monogamy in their relationship report to be a lot happier. It would be hypocritical if one was to be angry at the thought of his or her partner committing sexual infidelity while he or she is emotionally involved with someone other than his or her partner. All aspects of monogamy are equal, and all aspects of monogamy work together in a relationship. To have a healthy and successful relationship one must have both the emotional and sexual factors in tact.

Publicly, the emotional disloyalty in a relationship is not talked about or valued near as much as the sexual side of things. But this emotional side needs to be exposed and cherished. This study reinforces the understanding of differences between men and women. Men are drawn to more sexual desires, while women are looking to be in a relationship with a lot of emotional love. Both men and women should maintain awareness of their natural desires when entering a relationship. Characteristics that are natural and subconscious can be hard to overcome, but ultimately getting past this barrier in a relationship will make the relationship stronger and satisfying in the end.

Schmookier, T. & Bursik, K. (2007). The value of monogamy in emerging adulthood: A gendered perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 819-835

April 28, 2011July 6, 2011

Effects of sharing negative information during conversation

By Guest Author E. Corrada

Two women talking on a bench When two people talk, negative information is more likely to affect one’s perceptions toward something as compared to positive information.

Yoo conducted a survey of 114 undergraduate students who talked to another person based on a topic (midwestern university or cell phone) and type of context (positive, negative, or both). The students were then asked to talk with this person and come up with a list of ten positive or negative aspects of their assigned topic. For example, one pair had to come up with ten positive aspects of their given topic, and another pair had to think of ten negative aspects of their topic. The pairs with combined information types were to think of five positive and five negative aspects of their given topic. This was done to see if sharing negative information about a certain topic would change an individual’s view of that topic in a negative direction.

The results indicated that partners who discussed the negative aspects of a topic had the highest change of attitude in a negative way after the conversation. The participants with both positive and negative information being discussed followed, and those that participated in only discussing positive information had the lowest change of attitude toward the target after conversation.

The other aspect of this study revealed that two people who share the same negativity about a subject are not going to like each other more because of their shared negativity. The results for an increase in likability between partners were about the same for negative, positive, and combination information sharing.

Studies have shown that people regard negative information with more reverence than positive information, and are therefore more likely to pass it on. This occurs in gossip quite frequently and is usually geared toward a target in a negative way. Due to gossip’s negative aspect, it is important that people know when individuals engage in negative conversation about a target, people often believe that the information is true and begin to see the target in a negative light. Gossiping can then cause a negative image about something to be spread throughout a community and eventually the image could be falsely altered again and again as it moves along from person to person. With this being said, people should realize the potential harm that could result from negative conversation about a certain topic. Conversing with someone about another person in a negative way can lead to some substantial harm and hurt feelings in the future.

Yoo, J.H. (2009). The power of sharing negative information in a dyadic context. Communication Reports, 22, 29-40.

April 2, 2011April 2, 2011

A study of speed dating: How to get the second date

By Guest Author Krista Morasch

Speed dating candies As a speed-dating skeptic myself, it is intriguing to discover that although a six minute date does not offer sufficient time to learn a lot about a partner, the determinant in desire for a second interaction does not then completely fall to physical attraction. With social media and other modern technologies hastening our judgments of people, the ultimate impacts of these impressions remains a fruitful area of research.

Houser, Horan, and Furler recently conducted a study of 157 speed daters. They covered three basic issues in their study:

How the dater’s predicted value of a future relationship relates to his/her attraction, similarity, and nonverbal communication to develop liking (such as eye contact) to her/his date.
How the dater’s predicted value of a future relationship relates to his/her desire for a future date.
How the dater’s attraction, similarity, and non-verbal communication relates to his/her desire for a future date.

The results indicated that when a dater predicted the value of a future relationship to be high, their attraction and amount of positive nonverbal communication was high as well. Similarity however, did not relate to the predicted value of a future relationship. The results also revealed when the predicted values of future relationships to be high when so too was the desire for a future date. Obviously then, a high desire for a date positively corresponds to high levels of attraction and positive nonverbal communication. Using this principle, the researchers could predict with 77 percent accuracy whether a dater would desire another date.

With this knowledge of what makes people say yes or no to another date, people have the opportunity to become super speed-daters. They will know what to do to enhance their chances of getting another date and hopefully use the knowledge in their speed dating endeavors. This study has provided and proven prescript things one can do to achieve this end. For instance, a dater can practice grooming and hygiene in a way to make him or herself more attractive. Also, a dater can intentionally send nonverbal communication showing his or her interest such as leaning in, holding eye contact, and/or smiling. Finally, he or she can choose discussion topics that will make him or her seem pleasant and desirable to be around in the future. When attractiveness, nonverbal communication, and high perceived value of a future relationship are present the likelihood for a desired further date is high as well. As such, it appears that enhancing any or all of these criteria will also enhance one’s date probability.

Houser, M.L., Horan, S.M., & Furler, L.A. (2008). Dating in the fast lane: how communication predicts speed-dating success. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 749-768.

March 15, 2011July 6, 2011

The Pros and Cons of Listening to a Traumatic Experience

By Guest Author Tess Nelson

Two people talking, by alancleaver_2000 It is common knowledge that people who have undergone a traumatic experience can heal emotionally by simply talking about it with someone else; everyone needs to vent. However, while this process may be beneficial to the speaker, it can negatively impact the listener.

Lewis and Manusov looked at 82 reports of interactions between closely related persons (based on emotional ties and proximity, such as roommates, relatives, friends, and romantic partners). The end results indicated that the listener’s level of distress increased with the amount of responsibility felt and the time they spent listening. However there are many varying factors that contribute to the listener’s level of distress that should also be considered, such as expectations by speakers, the level of distress the speaker is experiencing, the amount of support the listener can provide and what resources are available to the listener. Another major influencing factor is the listener’s reluctance to listen; sometimes people just do not want to hear about it. Nonetheless, the predominate deciding factor is the type of relationship between the listener and speaker. This relationship determines the level of responsibility the listener feels, what the speaker expects from the listener, and ultimately how each will feel when the conversation ends.

It is important that both persons leave the conversation with little or no distress. Ideally both would come out feeling better, but this is a difficult feat to achieve. While generally the speaker may decrease their levels of distress, they may unknowingly distress the listener, especially if they have not undergone professional training. If the listener can no longer offer support, they can only distance themselves emotionally. The most common way to do so is to offer advice; however there is also a possibility that this too could have negative effects on the discloser, which in turn has a negative effect on the listener. Thus it is at this point that the listener should encourage the speaker to talk to a counselor, support group, or other personal relationship.

Lewis, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Listening to Another’s Distress in Everyday Relationships. Communication Quarterly, 57, 282-301.

February 25, 2011

Are Teens Hiding Behind The Screen?

By Guest Author Jonathan Nielsen

“R U 4 real?” The use of phrases like this demonstrate how technology has managed to merge itself with the social life of teenagers in the form of instant messaging, text messaging and social networking sites such as Facebook. A little observation will tell anyone that a large percentage of a teen’s time is spent texting on his or her phone or chatting online. With so much time devoted to these activities, researchers want to know if there are any side effects.

Pierce set out to examine the effects that teen usage of these technologies might have on their social life. She conducted a study that sought to determine if there was a relationship between recent social technologies and shyness among teenagers. In the study, 280 teenagers answered survey questions regarding how much time they spend on socially interactive technologies such as text messaging, instant messaging, and social networking sites. In addition to finding out how much time teenagers spent on these technologies, the survey also asked questions regarding each teen’s feelings toward face-to-face communication.

The results revealed a clear connection between social introversion and the socially interactive technologies. Those who disliked personal communication were more likely to use socially interactive technologies. This suggests that these new technologies are providing shy individuals with a comfortable means of communication, while replacing any opportunities that these individuals may have had to get over their timidity by practicing face-to-face communication. Lastly, the author concludes that since these technologies are relatively new, society has yet to discover all of the possible consequences.

With the results of this study in mind, it is crucial for teens to evaluate their personal use of these technologies. Do they substitute personal time with friends for time on Facebook? Do they text their friends more than they call them? Are they using these technologies as a way to avoid their social anxieties? As foreign as these problems may be to parents and teachers, the answers to these questions are important to a teen’s future success in life. Face-to-face communication is vital in the workplace, and many teenagers may not be properly developing the necessary interpersonal skills; therefore, these questions must not be avoided. All of this is to say that teenagers must come to realize that they are an experimental generation– No other generation has grown up using these social technologies, and the consequences of these technologies are poorly known.

Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1367-1372.

February 3, 2011February 3, 2011

Reading Between the Lines: What Our E-mails Say About Our Near and Far Relationships

By Guest Author Elizabeth Worlein

As a busy woman, a girlfriend in a long-distance relationship, and friend that is hard to reach by phone, I have wondered how my use of technology impacts my relationships. What does my use of e-mail say about my relationships with my friends, my romantic partner, and my family?

Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, and Wigley attempt to answer this question in a recent study. Two hundred and twenty-six college students submitted their personal e-mail messages that they received in one week. The researchers examined how the e-mails maintained the students’ relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. The researchers also examined how relationships were maintained between people that were geographically close, and those that were long-distance. Researchers observed five main behaviors people exhibited to maintain their relationships in the three types of relationships:

Family:

Openness (sharing your experience, feelings, etc.)
Social Networks (references to events, school, or other relationships)
Positivity (e.g. “Have a great day!”)
Assurances (e.g. “I love you.”)
Joint Activities (e.g. “See you Monday!”)

Friends:

Openness
Social Networks
Positivity
Joint Activities
Miscellaneous (Sign-offs, emoticons, etc.)

Romantic Partners:

Assurances
Openness
Positivity
Social Networks
Referring to cards, letters, or calls

This study illustrates that through the use of e-mail, we can continue to maintain our relationships when we are not face-to-face. What we communicate over e-mail, such as assurances or positivity, is similar to what we use to maintain our relationships when we are face-to-face with the person. The results indicate that our interactions over e-mail are not very different if we are near to or far away from the person.

What does this study’s finding say about our relationships? Perhaps what we are communicating illustrates what we value in that relationship. For example, we may maintain friendships and family relationships to talk about our everyday experiences. For our romantic partners, we seek to communicate the importance of our relationship through assurances and openness. From all of these relationships, we are seeking positivity and openness, among many other values. Nothing radical happening on e-mail compared to any other venue–just another venue upon which to share the human condition.

Johnson, A., Haigh, M., Becker, J., Craig, E., & Wigley, S. (2008). College Students’ Use of Relational Management Strategies in Email in Long-Distance and Geographically Close Relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381-404.