HHS 207 Communcation Skills for Health and Human Services-WK4-1

Chapter 10 Interpersonal Relationship Types

This chapter focuses on specific relationship types: (1) friendship, (2) love, (3) family, and (4) workplace relationships. We establish what these are and explore how interpersonal communication within each of these relationships can be made more effective. We’ll also examine the dark side of some relationships in the final section. All of these relationships can be face-to-face or online or, as is most often the case, some combination. Online relationships have been increasing since the first online dating service was established in 1995. According to one survey, 38 percent of those who identified themselves as “single and looking” used an online dating service (Smith & Duggan, 2013). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest; professional sites such as LinkedIn; and the dating sites such as Match.com, eHarmony, and OKCupid (and the numerous apps for your phone such as Zoosk, PlentyofFish, and HowAboutWe) make it increasingly easy and interesting to meet new friends and potential romantic partners, to keep in touch with family (websites that provide family hubs are increasing in popularity), and to conduct much of the business of work. As you’ve no doubt noticed, each type of relationship has both advantages and disadvantages. Here we need to identify just a few of these. One of the advantages to establishing relationships online (though some may say it’s a disadvantage) is that personality outweighs physical appearance. Online communication reveals people’s inner qualities first. Rapport and mutual self-disclosure become more important than physical attractiveness in promoting intimacy (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). And contrary to some popular opinion, online relationships rely just as heavily on the ideals of trust, honesty, and commitment as do face-to-face relationships (Whitty & Gavin, 2001). Friendship and romantic interaction on the Internet are a natural boon to shut-ins and extremely shy people, for whom traditional ways of meeting others are often difficult. Computer talk is empowering for those with “physical disabilities or disfigurements,” for whom face-to-face interactions are often superficial and often end with withdrawal (Bull & Rumsey, 1988; Lea & Spears, 1995). By eliminating the physical cues, computer talk equalizes the interaction and doesn’t put the disfigured person, for example, at an immediate disadvantage in a society where physical attractiveness is so highly valued. Online you’re free to reveal as much or as little about your physical self as you wish, when you wish. Another obvious advantage of online relationships is that the number of people you can reach is so vast that it’s relatively easy to find someone who matches what you’re looking for. The situation is like finding a book that covers just what you need from a library of millions of volumes rather than from a collection of only several hundred or even thousands. In a study of over 19,000 couples who were married between 2005 and 2012, those marriages that started online had higher marital satisfaction and were somewhat less likely to end in divorce than those that started in offline meetings (Cacioppo, 2013). Another difference that is often discussed is that of deception. It is a lot easier to lie online than in face-to-face situations. However, most people seem to be relatively truthful in their profiles, for example (Dean, 2010b). As noted elsewhere, women take off a few pounds and men add a bit to their height, but for the most part, the profiles prove accurate (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). But you really can’t tell how much a photo has been enhanced or how long ago the photo was taken. And depending on the technology you’re using, you may not be able to hear the person’s voice; this too hinders you as you seek to develop a total picture of the other person. Online, people can present a false self with little chance of detection; minors may present themselves as adults, and adults may present themselves as children in order to conduct illicit sexual communications and perhaps meetings. Similarly, people can present themselves as poor when they’re rich or as serious and committed when they’re just enjoying the fun and games of this online experience. Although people can also misrepresent themselves in face-to-face relationships, the fact that it’s easier to do online probably accounts for the greater frequency of misrepresentation in computer relationships (Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001).

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 252). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Friendship Relationships

10.1 Define friendship and explain how it develops. Friendship has engaged the attention and imagination of poets, novelists, and artists of all kinds. On television, friendships have become almost as important as romantic pairings. And friendship also interests a range of interpersonal communication researchers (Samter, 2004). Throughout your life, you’ll encounter many people, but out of this wide array you’ll develop few face-to-face relationships you would call friendships. Despite the low number of friendships you may form, however, their importance is great. On social network sites, the number of friends can easily be in the hundreds, even thousands. Of course, different definitions of friend are used in each case. The number of friends you have on your favorite social network site depends on several factors (Awl, 2011): your willingness to make new friends and interact with them, the enjoyment you get from communicating with a wide variety of people, and your time constraints. After all, when you have hundreds of friends, it takes time to read their posts and respond as you might like.

Definition and Characteristics

The type of friendship that we’re talking about is the relatively close relationship we have with someone (online or face-to-face) rather than a “friend” who you don’t really know but friended because he or she is a friend of a friend of a friend. In this context, friendship is an interpersonal relationship between two interdependent persons that is mutually productive and characterized by mutual positive regard. • Friendship is an interpersonal relationship. Communication interactions must have taken place between the people. Further, the relationship involves a “personalistic focus” (Wright, 1978, 1984); friends react to each other as complete persons—as unique, genuine, and irreplaceable individuals. • Friendships must be mutually productive. Friendships cannot be destructive to either person. Once destructiveness enters into a relationship, it really can’t be called a friendship. Lover relationships, marriage relationships, parent– child relationships, and just about any other possible relationship can be either destructive or productive, but friendship must enhance the potential of each person and can only be productive. Friendships that are destructive are best viewed as pseudo-friendships. • Friendships are characterized by mutual positive regard. Liking people is essential if we are to call them friends. Three major characteristics of friendship—trust, emotional support, and sharing of interests (Blieszner & Adams, 1992)—facilitate mutual positive regard. In North America, face-to-face friendships are clearly a matter of choice; you choose—within limits—who your friends will be. And most researchers define friendship as a voluntary relationship of choice (Samter, 2004). But throughout human history, in many parts of the world—for example, in small villages miles away from urban centers, where people are born, live, and die without venturing much beyond their community—relationships traditionally have not been voluntary. In these settings, you simply form relationships with those in your village. You don’t have the luxury of selecting certain people to interact with and others to ignore. You must interact with and form friendships and romantic relationships with members of the community simply because these are the only people you come into contact with on a regular basis (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993). This situation is changing rapidly, however, as Internet use becomes universal. With access to people from all over the world via the Internet, more and more relationships will become voluntary.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 253). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Friendship Types

One insightful approach to friendship classifies friends into three major types: friendships of reciprocity, receptivity, and association (Reisman, 1979, 1981). Although developed before the advent of social networking, you’ll notice that each type exists in both face-to-face and online friendships. • The friendship of reciprocity is the ideal type, characterized by loyalty, selfsacrifice, mutual affection, and generosity. A friendship of reciprocity is based on equality: each individual shares equally in giving and receiving the benefits and rewards of the relationship. “Friends with benefits”—friends who are not romantically committed to each other but who enjoy a sexual relationship—would be an example of friendship of reciprocity—each person derives equal benefits. • In the friendship of receptivity, there is an imbalance in giving and receiving; one person is the primary giver and one is the primary receiver. This is a positive imbalance, however, because each person gains something from the relationship. The different needs of both the person who receives and the person who gives affection are satisfied. This is the friendship that may develop between a teacher and a student, a doctor and a patient, or mentor and protégé. In fact, a difference in status is essential for the friendship of receptivity to develop. • The friendship of association is a transitory one. It might be described as a friendly relationship rather than a true friendship. Associative friendships are the kind we often have with classmates, neighbors, or coworkers. This is also the type of friendship you have with many people on your social media sites who you friended but without really knowing them or planning on getting to know them. There is no great loyalty, no great trust, no great giving or receiving, no mutual obligations. The association is cordial but not intense.

Friendship Needs

Friendships serve a variety of important needs. On the basis of your experiences or your predictions, you select as friends those who help to satisfy a variety of basic needs. Selecting friends on the basis of need satisfaction is similar to choosing a marriage partner, an employee, or any person who may be in a position to satisfy your needs. For example, depending on your needs, you may look for friends such as these, whether face-to-face or online (Reiner & Blanton, 1997; Wright 1978, 1984): • Utility: Someone who may have special talents, skills, or resources that prove useful to you, for example, a person who is especially bright who might assist you in getting a better job or in introducing you to a possible romantic partner. Many of the “friendships” formed on professional social media sites like LinkedIn would be of this type. • Affirmation: Someone who affirms your personal value and helps you to recognize your attributes, for example, someone who communicates appreciation for your leadership abilities, athletic prowess, or sense of humor. The friend on Facebook who always comments on your photos and posts would also be serving this affirming function. • Ego support: Someone who behaves in a supportive, encouraging, and helpful manner, for example, a person who helps you view yourself as worthy and competent. • Stimulation: Someone who introduces you to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world, for example, a person who might bring you into contact with previously unfamiliar people, issues, and experiences. Online friendships with those from other parts of the world or of different religions or cultural traditions regularly serve this function, sometimes without being aware of it. • Security: Someone who does nothing to hurt you or to call attention to your weaknesses, for example, a person who is supportive and nonjudgmental.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 254). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Friendship and Communication

Close and lasting friendships develop over time in stages. At one end of the friendship continuum are strangers, or two persons who have just met or just friended each other, and at the other end are intimate friends. What happens between these two extremes? As you progress from the initial contact stage to intimate friendship, the depth and breadth of communications increase; you talk about issues that are closer to your inner core. Similarly, the number of communication topics increases as your friendship becomes closer. As depth and breadth increase, so does the satisfaction you derive from the friendship. This increase in depth and breadth can and does occur in all forms of communication—face-to-face as well as online. It’s interesting to note that establishing and maintaining friendships are the major reasons for Internet communication (instant messaging and texting, social network sites, and e-mail) among college students and among teens (Knox, Daniels, Sturdivant, & Zusman, 2001; Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007). And, of course, these forms of communication promote closeness and intimacy and often encourage online partners to meet face-to-face (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004). We can identify three main stages of friendship development and integrate some of the characteristics of effective interpersonal communication (Johnson, Wittenberg, Villagran, Mazur, & Villagran, 2003). The assumption here is that, as the friendship progresses from initial contact and acquaintanceship through casual friendship, to close and intimate friendship, effective interpersonal communication increases. However, there is no assumption made that close relationships are necessarily the preferred type or that they’re better than casual or temporary relationships. We need all types. ContACt At the contact stage, the characteristics of effective interpersonal communication are usually present to only a small degree. You’re guarded rather than open or expressive. Because you don’t yet know the other person, your ability to empathize with the other is limited. At this stage, there is little genuine immediacy; you see yourselves as separate and distinct rather than as a unit. Because the relationship is so new and because the people don’t know each other very well, the interaction is often characterized by awkwardness—for example, by overlong pauses, uncertainty about topics to be discussed, and ineffective exchanges of sender and receiver roles. InvolvEmEnt In this second stage, there is a dyadic consciousness, a clear sense of “we-ness,” of togetherness; communication demonstrates a sense of immediacy. At this stage, you participate in activities as a unit rather than as separate individuals. In the involvement period, the other person can be called “friend”—someone you would go with to the movies, sit with in the cafeteria or in class, ride home with from school, or follow (really follow) on social media. At this friendship stage, you begin to see the qualities of effective interpersonal interaction more clearly. You start to express yourself openly and become interested in the other person’s disclosures. Because you’re beginning to understand this person, you empathize and demonstrate significant otherorientation. You also demonstrate supportiveness and develop a genuinely positive attitude, both toward the other person and toward mutual communication situations. There is an ease at this stage, a coordination in the interaction between the two persons. You communicate with confidence, maintain appropriate eye contact and flexibility in body posture and gesturing, and use few of the adaptors that signal discomfort. As friendships develop, whether face-to-face or online, network convergence occurs; that is, as a relationship between two people develops, they begin to share their network of other communicators with each other (Parks, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996). And this, at least in online friendships, accounts in great part for the enormous number of friends some people have. CloSE AnD IntImAtE FrIEnDShIp At this stage, you and your friend see yourselves more as an exclusive unit, and each of you derives great benefits (for example, emotional support) from the friendship (Hays, 1989). Because you know each other well (for example, you know each other’s values, opinions, and attitudes), your uncertainty about each other has been significantly reduced—you’re able to predict each other’s behaviors with considerable accuracy. This knowledge makes significant interaction management possible, as well as greater positivity, supportiveness, and openness (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly, 2004). You become more other-oriented and more willing to make significant sacrifices for the other person. You empathize and exchange perspectives a great deal more, and you expect in return that your friend will also empathize with you. With a genuinely positive feeling for this individual, your supportiveness and positive stroking become spontaneous. Because you see yourselves as an exclusive unit, equality and immediacy are in clear evidence. You’re willing to respond openly, confidently, and expressively to this person and to own your feelings and thoughts. Your supportiveness and positivity are genuine expressions of the closeness you feel for this person. Each person in an intimate friendship is truly equal; each can initiate and each can respond; each can be active and each can be passive; each speaks and each listens.

Friendship, Culture, and Gender

Your friendships and the way you look at friendships are influenced by your culture and your gender. Let’s look first at culture. CUltUrE AnD FrIEnDShIpS In the United States, you can be friends with someone yet never really be expected to go out of your way for this person. Many Middle Easterners, Asians, and Latin Americans consider going significantly out of their way an absolutely essential ingredient in friendship; if you’re not willing to sacrifice for your friend, then this person is not really your friend (Dresser, 2005). Generally friendships are closer in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. In their emphasis on the group and on cooperating, collectivist cultures foster the development of close friendship bonds. Members of a collectivist culture are expected to help others in the group. When you help or do things for someone else, you increase your own attractiveness to this person, and this is certainly a good start for a friendship. Of course, the culture continues to reward these close associations. Members of individualist cultures, on the other hand, are expected to look out for number one—themselves. Consequently, they’re more likely to compete and to try to do better than each other—conditions that don’t support, generally at least, the development of friendships. Most people, of course, have both collectivist and individualist values, but they have them in different degrees, and that is what we are talking about here—differences in degree of the collectivist versus the individualist orientation. GEnDEr AnD FrIEnDShIpS Gender also influences your friendships—who becomes your friend and the way you look at friendships. Perhaps the best-documented finding—already noted in our discussion of self-disclosure—is that women selfdisclose more than men (e.g., Dolgin, Meyer, & Schwartz, 1991). This difference holds throughout male and female friendships. Male friends self-disclose less often and with less intimate details than female friends do. Men generally don’t view intimacy as a necessary quality of their friendships (Hart, 1990). Women engage in significantly more affectional behaviors with their friends than do males; this difference may account for the greater difficulty men experience in beginning and maintaining close friendships (Hays, 1989). Women engage in more casual communication; they also share greater intimacy and more confidences with their friends than do men. Communication, in all its forms and functions, seems a much more important dimension of women’s friendships. When women and men were asked to evaluate their friendships, women rated their same-sex friendships higher in general quality, intimacy, enjoyment, and nurturance than did men (Sapadin, 1988). Men, in contrast, rated their opposite-sex friendships higher in quality, enjoyment, and nurturance than did women. Both men and women rated their opposite-sex friendships similarly in intimacy. These differences may be due, in part, to our society’s suspicion of male friendships; as a result, a man may be reluctant to admit to having close relationship bonds with another man. Men’s friendships are often built around shared activities—attending a ballgame, playing cards, working on a project at the office. Women’s friendships, on the other hand, are built more around a sharing of feelings, support, and “personalism.” An important element is similarity in status, in willingness to protect a friend in uncomfortable situations, and in academic major. As we move further into the twenty-first century, the ways in which men and women develop and maintain their friendships will undoubtedly change considerably—as will all gender-related variables. In the meantime, given the present state of research on gender differences, be careful not to exaggerate and to treat small differences as if they were highly significant. Avoid stereotypes and avoid stressing opposites to the neglect of the huge number of similarities between men and women (Wright, 1988; Deaux & LaFrance, 1998).

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 257). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Friends with Benefits

As noted earlier, a friends-with-benefits relationship—which varies greatly from one couple to another—engage in sexual relationships but without any romantic involvement, dating, or the thought of a shared future together (Mongeau, Knight, Williams, Eden, & Shaw, 2013). Although most often portrayed as a cross-sex relationship, it can apply to same-sex as well as opposite sex pairings. This type of relationship has been around probably throughout time, but it has only recently been given a name and today is largely associated with college students. In one study, over 60 percent of college students surveyed reported having had at least one such relationship (Bisson & Levine, 2009). A friends-with-benefits relationship is somewhere between regular friendship and intimacy and encompasses friendship as well as sex. There is some level of emotional attachment but not to the degree that each member of the couple sees their relationship as a permanent or exclusive one. In fact, most friends-with-benefits relationships are nonexclusive; each person may also be dating others or simply “hooking up” with others. Among the advantages of such relationships are easy access to sex in a safe and comfortable environment with a trusted friend, freedom from commitment or intense involvement,

gaining experience, closeness, and companionship. Among the disadvantages are the possibilities that the friendship will suffer and getting hurt (Weaver, MacKeigan, and MacDonald, 2013). Open, sincere, and direct communication were key factors in ensuring that the relationship has more advantages than disadvantages. More men than women seem to participate in friends with benefits. In a study of over 1,000 college students, approximately 64 percent of the men but only 50 percent of the women indicated they had experience with friends with benefits (Puentes, Knox, & Zusman, 2008). Another study found that 54 percent of men and 43 percent of women reported such relationships (Owen & Fincham, 2009). It was also found that “romantics” (who believe that each person has one true love and that true love comes only once) were less likely to have a friendship with benefits than were “realists” (who believe that there are many possible people you could love). Alcohol was a significant factor in establishing such relationships, especially for women (Owen & Fincham, 2009). Another type of relationship that is closely akin to friends with benefits is the hookup (made very easy with the numerous websites), where people meet just for sex. These relationships (and some researchers would probably not even consider this a relationship) can morph into friendships and then to friends with benefits.

Love Relationships

10.2 Describe the various types of love. Of all the qualities of interpersonal relationships, none seems as important as love. “We are all born for love,” noted famed British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. “It is the principle of existence and its only end.” love is a feeling characterized by closeness and caring and by intimacy, passion, and commitment (Sternberg, 1988). It’s also an interpersonal relationship developed, maintained, and sometimes destroyed through communication—and at the same time a relationship that can be greatly enhanced with communication skills (Dindia & Timmerman, 2003). Although there are many theories about love, the conceptualization that captured the attention of interpersonal researchers and continues to receive research support is a model proposing that there is not one but six types of love, originally developed by John Alan Lee (Kimberly & Werner-Wilson, 2013; Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2013; Lee, 1976, 1988). View the descriptions of each type as broad characterizations that are generally, but not always, true. As a preface to this discussion of the types of love, you may wish to respond to the following statements to get an idea of your love style. For each statement, indicate if it is true (T) of your feelings about love or false (F). The discussion following will elaborate on these six styles of love and these statements. ____ 1. I value physical attractiveness very highly. ____ 2. I would not become romantically involved with someone who was not attractive. ____ 3. I don’t think love should be too intense; it’s best when it’s kept light. ____ 4. I would not love someone who was not interesting or amusing. ____ 5. I seek a love that could be described as peaceful. ____ 6. I don’t think sex is that important to a love relationship. ____ 7. I would only become attracted to someone who would help me in my career. ____ 8. I would select a romantic partner who is similar in attitudes and personality to me. ____ 9. I think love is either a roller coaster or nothing. ____ 10. I see love as total, intense, possessive. ____ 11. I think love is a selfless feeling. ____ 12. I can love someone who doesn’t love me.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 259). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Love Types Let’s look at each of these six types of love: the love of beauty, fun, peacefulness, practicality, elation, and compassion. EroS: BEAUty AnD SExUAlIty (Statements 1–2 in the self-test.) Like Narcissus, who fell in love with the beauty of his own image, eros love focuses on beauty and physical attractiveness—sometimes to the exclusion of qualities you might consider more important and more lasting. Also like Narcissus, the erotic lover has an idealized image of beauty that is unattainable in reality. Consequently, the erotic lover often feels unfulfilled. Erotic lovers are particularly sensitive to physical imperfections in the ones they love. lUDUS: EntErtAInmEnt AnD ExCItEmEnt (Statements 3–4 in the self-test.) ludus love is experienced as a game, as fun. The better you can play the game, the greater the enjoyment. Love is not to be taken too seriously; emotions are to be held in check lest they get out of hand and make trouble; passions never rise to the point where they get out of control. A ludic lover is self-controlled, always aware of the need to manage love rather than allow it to be in control. Perhaps because of this need to control love, some researchers have proposed that ludic love tendencies may reveal tendencies to sexual aggression (Sarwer, Kalichman, Johnson, Early, et al., 1993). The ludic lover retains a partner only as long as the partner is interesting and amusing. When interest fades, it’s time to change partners. Perhaps because love is a game, sexual fidelity is of little importance. In fact, research shows that people who score high on ludic love are more likely to engage in “extradyadic” dating and sex than those who score low on ludus (Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). Ludic lovers also score high on narcissism (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002). StorGE: pEACEFUl AnD Slow (Statements 5–6 in the self-test.) Storge (a word that comes from the Greek for “familial love”) love lacks passion and intensity. Storgic lovers set out not to find lovers but to establish a companionable relationship with someone they know and with whom they can share interests and activities. Storgic love is a gradual process of unfolding thoughts and feelings; the changes seem to come so slowly and so gradually that it’s often difficult to define exactly where the relationship is at any point in time. Sex in storgic relationships comes late, and when it comes, it assumes no great importance. prAGmA: prACtICAl AnD trADItIonAl (Statements 7–8 in the self-test.) The pragma lover is practical and seeks a relationship that will work. Pragma lovers want compatibility and a relationship in which their important needs and desires will be satisfied. They’re concerned with the social qualifications of a potential mate even more than with personal qualities; family and background are extremely important to the pragma lover, who relies not so much on feelings as on logic. The pragma lover views love as a useful relationship that makes the rest of life easier. So the pragma lover asks questions about a potential mate such as “Will this person earn a good living?” “Can this person cook?” “Will this person help me advance in my career?” Pragma lovers’ relationships rarely deteriorate. This is partly because pragma lovers choose their mates carefully and emphasize similarities. Another reason is that they have realistic romantic expectations. mAnIA: ElAtIon AnD DEprESSIon (Statements 9–10 in the self-test.) mania is characterized by extreme highs and extreme lows. The manic lover loves intensely and at the same time intensely worries about the loss of the love. This fear often prevents the manic lover from deriving as much pleasure as possible from the relationship. With little provocation, the manic lover may experience extreme jealousy. Manic love is obsessive; the manic lover must possess the beloved completely. In return, the manic lover wishes to be possessed—to be loved intensely. The manic lover’s poor self-image seems capable of being improved only by love; self-worth comes from being loved rather than from any sense of inner satisfaction. Because love is so important, danger signs in a relationship are often ignored; the manic lover believes that if there is love, then nothing else matters. AGApE: CompASSIonAtE AnD SElFlESS (Statements 11–12 in the self-test.) Agape is a compassionate, egoless, self-giving love. The agapic lover loves even people with whom he or she has no close ties. This lover loves the stranger on the road even though the two of them probably will never meet again. Agape is a spiritual love, offered without concern for personal reward or gain. This lover loves without expecting that the love will be reciprocated. Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi preached this unqualified love, agape (Lee, 1976). In one sense, agape is more a philosophical kind of love than a love that most people have the strength to achieve. People who believe in yuan, a Chinese concept that comes from the Buddhist belief in predestiny, are more likely to favor agapic (and pragmatic) love and less likely to favor erotic love (Goodwin & Findlay, 1997). Each of these varieties of love can combine with others to form new and different patterns (for example, manic and ludic or storge and pragma). These six, however, identify the major types of love and illustrate the complexity of any love relationship. The six styles should also make it clear that different people want different things, that each person seeks satisfaction in a unique way. The love that may seem lifeless or crazy or boring to you may be ideal for someone else. At the same time, another person may see these very same negative qualities in the love you’re seeking. Remember, too, that love changes. A relationship that began as pragma may develop into ludus or eros. A relationship that began as erotic may develop into mania or storge. One approach sees this developmental process as having three major stages (Duck, 1986): • First stage: Eros, mania, and ludus (initial attraction) • Second stage: Storge (as the relationship develops) • Third stage: Pragma (as relationship bonds develop)

Love and Communication

How do you communicate when you’re in love? What do you say? What do you do nonverbally? According to research, you exaggerate your beloved’s virtues and minimize his or her faults. You share emotions and experiences and speak tenderly, with an extra degree of politeness, to each other; “please,” “thank you,” and similar expressions abound. You frequently use personalized communication, which includes secrets you keep from other people and messages that have meaning only within your specific relationship (Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980; Knapp, Vangelisti, & Caughlin, 2014). You also create and use personal idioms (and pet names): words, phrases, and gestures that carry meaning only for the particular relationship and that say you have a special language that signifies your special bond (Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981). When outsiders try to use personal idioms—as they sometimes do—the expressions seem inappropriate, at times even an invasion of privacy. In online relationships, these romantic messages often move offline or into some private online group. You engage in significant self-disclosure, and when the self-disclosure is extremely significant, you restrict this to this one person, often offline. There is more confirmation and less disconfirmation among lovers than among either nonlovers or those who are going through romantic breakups. You also use more constructive conflict resolution strategies if you feel your relationship is threatened (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). You’re highly aware of what is and is not appropriate to say to the person you love. You know how to reward, but also how to punish, each other. In short, you know what to do to obtain the reaction you want. Among your most often used means for communicating love are telling the person face-to-face or by telephone (in one survey, 79 percent indicated they did it this way), expressing supportiveness, and talking things out and cooperating (Marston, Hecht, & Robers, 1987). Today, you do the same things but often through instant messaging (IM), Facebook postings, and Twitter; you change your status, post photos of the two of you in romantic settings, or simply post “We in love.” Nonverbally, you also communicate your love. Prolonged and focused eye contact is perhaps the clearest nonverbal indicator of love. So important is eye contact that its avoidance almost always triggers a “What’s wrong?” response. You also have longer periods of silence than you do with friends (Guerrero, 1997). In addition, you display affiliative cues (signs that show you love the other person), including head nods, gestures, and forward leaning. And you give Duchenne smiles—smiles that are beyond voluntary control and that signal genuine joy (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). These smiles give you crow’s-feet around the eyes, raise up your cheeks, and puff up the lower eyelids (Lemonick, 2005a). You eliminate socially taboo adaptors, at least in the presence of the loved one. For example, you curtail scratching your head, picking your teeth, cleaning your ears, and passing wind. These adaptors often return after lovers have achieved a permanent relationship. You touch more frequently and more intimately (Anderson, 2004; Guerrero, 1997). You also use more tie signs, nonverbal gestures that show that you’re together, such as holding hands, walking with arms entwined, kissing, and the like. You may even dress alike; the styles of clothes and even the colors selected by lovers are more similar than those worn by nonlovers. Posting such photos on Instagram, Pinterest, or Flickr or on any social network site communicates more publicly your pairing, your connectedness.

Love, Culture, and Gender

Like friendship, love is heavily influenced by culture and gender (Dion & Dion, 1996; Wood & Smith, 2005). Let’s consider first some of the cultural influences on the way you look at love and on the type of love you’re seeking or maintaining. CUltUrE AnD lovE Although most of the research on the six love styles has been done in the United States, some research has been conducted in other cultures (Bierhoff & Klein, 1991). Here are just a few examples to illustrate that love is seen differently in different cultures. Asians, for example, have been found to be more friendship-oriented in their love style than are Europeans (Dion & Dion, 1993b). Members of individualist cultures (for example, Western Europeans) are likely to place greater emphasis on romantic love and on individual fulfillment. Members of collectivist cultures are likely to spread their love over a large network of relatives (Dion & Dion, 1993a). When compared to their Chinese counterparts, American men scored higher on ludic and agapic love and lower on erotic and pragma love. American men are also less likely to view emotional satisfaction as crucial to relationship maintenance (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002). One study finds a love style among Mexicans characterized as calm, compassionate, and deliberate (Leon, Philbrick, Parra, Escobedo, et al., 1994). In comparisons between love styles in the United States and France, it was found that people in the United States scored higher on storge and mania than the French; in contrast, the French scored higher on agape (Murstein, Merighi, & Vyse, 1991). In the United States, Caucasian women scored higher on mania than African-American women, whereas African-American women scored higher on agape. Caucasian and AfricanAmerican men, however, scored very similarly; no statistically significant differences were found (Morrow, Clark, & Brock, 1995).

GEnDEr AnD lovE Gender also influences love. In the United States, the differences between men and women in love are considered great. In poetry, novels, and the mass media, women and men are depicted as acting very differently when falling in love, being in love, and ending a love relationship. As Lord Byron put it in Don Juan, “Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart,/’Tis woman’s whole existence.” Women are portrayed as emotional, men as logical. Women are supposed to love intensely; men are supposed to love with detachment. Women and men seem to experience love to a similar degree, and research continues to find great similarities between male and female conceptions of love (Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Rubin, 1973). However, women indicate greater love than men do for their same-sex friends. This may reflect a real difference between the sexes, or it may be a function of the greater social restrictions on men. A man is not supposed to admit his love for another man. Women are permitted greater freedom to communicate their love for other women. Much research finds that men place more emphasis on romance than women. For example, when college students were asked the question “If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?” Approximately two-thirds of the men responded no, which seems to indicate that a high percentage were concerned with love and romance. However, less than one-third of the women responded no (LeVine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1994). Further, when men and women were surveyed concerning their view on love— whether basically realistic or basically romantic—it was found that married women had a more realistic (less romantic) conception of love than did married men (Knapp, Vangelisti, & Caughlin, 2014). Additional research also supports the view that men are more romantic; for example, “Men are more likely than women to believe in love at first sight, in love as the basis for marriage and for overcoming obstacles, and to believe that their partner and relationship will be perfect” (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). This difference seems to increase as the romantic relationship develops: men become more romantic and women less romantic (Fengler, 1974). In their reactions to broken romantic affairs, women and men exhibit similarities and differences. For example, the tendency for women and men to recall only pleasant memories and to revisit places with past associations was about equal. However, men engaged in more dreaming about the lost partner and in more daydreaming generally as a reaction to the breakup than did women.

Family Relationships

10.3 Summarize the characteristics of families and distinguish among couple and family types. If you had to define the term family, you might reply that a family consists of a husband, a wife, and one or more children. When pressed, you might add that some families also include other relatives—in-laws, brothers and sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and so on. But other types of relationships are, to their own members, families. One obvious example is the family without children—a pattern that has been increasing. Also on the increase is the single-parent family. Another obvious example is people living together in an exclusive relationship who are not married. For the most part, these cohabitants live as if they were married: there is an exclusive sexual commitment; there may be children; there are shared financial responsibilities, shared time, and shared space. These relationships mirror traditional marriages except that in marriage, the union is recognized by a religious body, the state, or both. Another example is the gay or lesbian couple who live together—whether as domestic partners or in marriage—in households that have all the characteristics of a family. Many of these couples have children from previous heterosexual unions, through artificial insemination, or by adoption. Although accurate statistics are difficult to secure, primary relationships among gays and lesbians seem more common than the popular media lead us to believe. And, most relationship experts agree, being in a committed relationship is the goal of most people, regardless of affectional orientation (Fitzpatrick & Caughlin, 2002; Kurdek, 2000, 2004; Patterson, 2000). The communication principles that apply to the traditional nuclear family (the mother–father–child family) also apply to these other kinds of families. In the following discussion, the term primary relationship denotes the relationship between the two principal parties—the husband and wife, the lovers, the domestic partners, for example; the term family denotes the broader constellation that includes children, relatives, and assorted significant others.

Characteristics of Families

All primary relationships and families have several qualities that further characterize this relationship type: defined roles, recognition of responsibilities, shared history and future, and shared living space. DEFInED rolES Many heterosexual couples divide their roles rather traditionally, with the man as primary wage earner and maintenance person and the woman as primary cook, child rearer, and housekeeper. This is less true among more highly educated couples and those in the higher socioeconomic classes, where changes in traditional role assignments are seen first. However, among gay and lesbian couples, clear-cut, stereotypical male and female roles are not found; they do not conform to traditional “masculine” and “feminine” roles (Cloud, 2008; Peplau, 1988). rECoGnItIon oF rESponSIBIlItIES Family members see themselves as having certain obligations and responsibilities to one another. For example, individuals have an obligation to help each other financially. There are also emotional responsibilities: to offer comfort when family members are distressed, to take pleasure in their pleasures, to feel their pain, to raise their spirits. Each person in a couple also has a temporal obligation to reserve some large block of time for the other. Sharing time seems important to all relationships, although each couple defines it differently. ShArED hIStory AnD FUtUrE Primary relationships have a shared history and the prospect of a shared future. For a relationship to become primary, there must be some history, some significant past interaction. This interaction enables the members to get to know each other, to understand each other a little better, and ideally to like and even love each other. Similarly, the individuals view the relationship as having a potential future. Despite researchers’ prediction that 50 percent of couples now entering first marriages will divorce (the rate is higher for second marriages) and that 41 percent of all persons of marriageable age will experience divorce, most couples entering a relationship such as marriage view it—ideally, at least—as permanent. ShArED lIvInG SpACE In general American culture, persons in primary interpersonal relationships usually share the same living space. When living space is not shared, the situation is generally seen as “abnormal” or temporary, both by the culture as a whole and by the individuals involved in the relationship. Even those who live apart for significant periods probably perceive a shared space as the ideal and, in fact, usually do share some special space at least part of the time. In some other cultures, however, men and women don’t share the same living space; the women may live with the children while the men live together in a communal arrangement (Harris, 1993). Even in the United States, the number of long-distance relationships is not insignificant. For example, the Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships (www.longdistancerelationships.net) puts the number of married persons who do not share a living space at over 3,500,000, which is 2.9 percent of all U.S. married people. And the number of such relationships is increasing. Approximately 7 million couples (or 14 million people) consider themselves to be in long-distance relationships. It’s been estimated that some 75 percent of college students have been, at some point in their lives, a part of a long-distance relationship, and at any one time, some 25 to 50 percent of college students are in long-distance relationships (Stafford, 2004). Long-distance relationships do not seem to have less satisfaction, less commitment, less intimacy, or less durability than shared-space relationships, as long as the individuals are able to get together about once a month (Rohlfing, 1995; Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Jiang & Hancock, 2013).

Family Types

Families can be classified in any number of ways, for example, according to the number of people in the family, their affectional orientation, and the presence or absence of children or of extended family members. One interesting communication oriented typology looks at families in terms of conformity and conversation (Arnold, 2008; Galvin, Byland, & Brommel, 2008; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997, 2004). Conformity orientation refers to the degree to which family members express similar or dissimilar attitudes, values, and beliefs. So we can speak of high-conformity families as those who express highly similar attitudes, beliefs, and values and try to avoid conflict and low-conformity families as those whose members express highly divergent attitudes, beliefs, and values and may frequently engage in conflict interactions. Families high in conformity are likely to be harmonious, with children who are expected to obey their parents, largely without question. Families low in conformity are likely to be less harmonious, with children who are given greater freedom to say or do as they wish. Conversation orientation refers to the degree to which family members can speak their mind. A family high on conversation orientation encourages members to discuss a variety of issues and to voice their opinions. A family low on conversation orientation discourages discussion and the voicing of opinions. With these two dimensions in mind, we can identify four types of families: • Consensual families: high in conversation and high in conformity. These families encourage open communication and agreement. • protective families: high in conformity and low in conversation. These families stress agreement and strive to avoid conflict but with little communication. • pluralistic families: low in conformity and high in conversation. These family members are encouraged to express different attitudes and points of view and to engage in open communication while being supportive of each other. • laissez-faire families: low in confirmation and low in conversation. These families avoid interaction and communication, and encourage privacy and a “do what you want” attitude. These family types are simply descriptions and are not meant to be evaluations; no assumption is made that one family type is better or more productive than another. What works for some people does not work for others.

Family and Communication

You know from your own family interactions that technology has greatly changed communication among family members. Cell phones enable parents and children to keep in close touch in case of emergencies or just to chat. College students today stay in closer touch with their parents, in part because of the cell phone but also through e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and a host of other websites. Another change has been that, in some cases parents and in most cases children, become so absorbed with their online community that they have little time for their biological family members. Sometimes, as in South Korea, Internet use seems to be contributing further to the already significant generational conflict between children and parents (Rhee & Kim, 2004). Similarly, a study on young people (ages 10 to 17) in the United States found that for both girls and boys, those who formed close online relationships were more likely to have low levels of communication with their parents and to be more “highly troubled” than those who don’t form such close online relationships (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2003). Another interesting change is that, in the case of adopted offspring, discovering birth parents is now a lot easier because of ready access to all sorts of data. Similarly, siblings that have been separated can find one another more easily—a process that may seem relatively unnecessary to most families in the United States but may be extremely important in war-torn countries, where families have been separated through occupation or forced relocation. With this as a background, let’s consider the communication patterns that dominate the family relationship. Four general communication patterns are identified here; each interpersonal relationship may then be viewed as a variation on one of these basic patterns (see Figure 10.1). thE EqUAlIty pAttErn The equality pattern probably exists more in theory than in practice, but it’s a good starting point for looking at communication in primary relationships. It exists more among same-sex couples than in opposite-sex couples (Huston & Schwartz, 1995). In the equality pattern, each person shares equally in the communication transactions; the roles played by each are equal. Thus, each person is accorded a similar degree of credibility; each is equally open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of the other; each engages in self-disclosure on a more or less equal basis. The communication is open, honest, direct, and free of the power plays that characterize so many other interpersonal relationships. In terms of the relationship license noted earlier, there are reciprocal licenses.

Equal relationships also are equitable. According to equity theory, family or relationship satisfaction is highest when there is equity—when each partner gets a proportional share of the costs and the rewards of the relationship. Dissatisfaction over inequities can lead to a “re-balancing of the scales” reaction. For example, an under-benefited partner may seek an outside affair as a way to get more relationship benefits—more love, more consideration, more support (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Walster, Walster, & Traupmann, 1978). thE BAlAnCED SplIt pAttErn In the balanced split pattern, an equality relationship is maintained but each person has authority over different domains. Each person is seen as an expert or a decision maker in different areas. For example, in the traditional nuclear family, the husband maintains high credibility in business matters and perhaps in politics. The wife maintains high credibility in matters such as child care and cooking. These gender roles are breaking down in many cultures, but they still define many families throughout the world (Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Conflict is generally viewed as nonthreatening by individuals in balanced split families because each has specified areas of expertise. Consequently, the outcome of any conflict is almost predetermined. thE UnBAlAnCED SplIt pAttErn In the unbalanced split relationship, one person dominates: one person is seen as an expert in more than half the areas of mutual communication. In many unions, this “expertise” equates with control. Thus, in the unbalanced split, one person is regularly in control of the relationship. In some cases, this person is the more intelligent or more knowledgeable, but in many cases, he or

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 268). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

she is more physically attractive or earns more. The less attractive or lower-income partner compensates by giving in to the other person, allowing the other to win arguments or to have his or her way in decision making. The person in control makes more assertions, tells the other person what should or will be done, gives opinions freely, plays power games to maintain control, and seldom asks for opinions in return. The noncontrolling person, conversely, asks questions, seeks opinions, and looks to the other for decision-making leadership. thE monopoly pAttErn In a monopoly relationship, one person is seen as the authority. This person lectures rather than communicates. Rarely does this person seek others’ advice, and he or she always reserves the right to have the final say. The controlling person tells the partner what is and what is not to be. The controlling person talks more frequently and goes off the topic of conversation more than does the noncontrolling partner (Palmer, 1989). The noncontrolling person looks to the other for permission, to voice opinion leadership, and to make decisions, almost as a child looks to an all-knowing, all-powerful parent. In this type of couple, arguments are few—because both individuals already know who is boss and who will win any argument that may arise. When the authority is challenged, however, there are arguments and bitter conflicts. One reason the conflicts are so bitter is that these individuals have had no rehearsal for adequate conflict resolution. They don’t know how to argue or how to disagree agreeably, so their conflict strategies frequently take the form of hurting the other person.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 269). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Families, Culture, and Gender

As with friendship and love, families also vary from one culture to another and are viewed differently by men and women. CUltUrE AnD FAmIlIES In U.S. society, it is assumed in discussions of relationship development—such as the model presented in this text—that you voluntarily choose your relationship partners. You consciously choose to pursue certain relationships and not others. In some cases, your husband or wife is chosen to unite two families or to bring some financial advantage to your family or village. An arrangement such as this may have been entered into by your parents when you were an infant or even before you were born. In most cultures, of course, there’s pressure to marry “the right” person and to be friends with certain people and not others. Similarly, U.S. researchers study—and textbook authors write about—how relationships dissolve and how to survive relationship breakups. It’s assumed that you have the right to exit an undesirable relationship. But in some cultures, you cannot simply dissolve a relationship once it’s formed or once there are children. In Roman Catholicism, once people are validly married, they’re always married and cannot dissolve that relationship. In such cultures, more important issues may be “How do you maintain a relationship that has problems?” “What can you do to survive in this unpleasant relationship?” or “How can you repair a troubled relationship?” (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993). Further, your culture influences the difficulty that you go through when relationships do break up. For example, married persons whose religion forbids divorce and remarriage experience religious disapproval and condemnation as well as the same economic and social difficulties everyone else goes through. In the United States, child custody almost invariably goes to the woman, and this presents an added emotional burden for the man. In Iran, child custody goes to the man, which presents added emotional burdens for the woman. In India, women experience greater difficulty than men in divorce because of their economic dependence on men, cultural beliefs about women, and the patriarchal order of the family. And it was only as recently as 2002 that the first wife in Jordan was granted a divorce. Prior to this, only men had been granted divorces. GEnDEr AnD FAmIlIES In the United States, both men and women can initiate relationships and both can dissolve them. Both men and women are expected to derive satisfaction from their interpersonal relationships; when that satisfaction isn’t present, either person may seek to exit the relationship. In Iran, on the other hand, only the man has the right to dissolve a marriage and does not have to give any reasons. Gay and lesbian families are accepted in some cultures and condemned in others. In the United States, some states allow same-sex couples to marry legally. In other states, domestic partnerships may be registered, and these grant gay men, lesbians, and (in some cases) unmarried heterosexuals rights that were formerly reserved only for married couples; examples are health insurance benefits and the right to make decisions when one member is incapacitated. In Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Canada, same-sex couples can marry; in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, same-sex relationship partners have the same rights as married partners. In many countries, however, same-sex couples are considered criminals and could face severe punishment, even death in some cultures.

Workplace Relationships

10.4 Describe how to create and maintain successful workplace relationships. The workplace is a context in which all forms of communication take place and all kinds of relationships may be seen. This context is especially influenced by culture— both by the wider culture and by the particular culture of a given workplace. Like all cultures, workplace cultures have their own rituals, norms, and rules for communicating. These rules, whether in an interview situation or in a friendly conversation, delineate appropriate and inappropriate verbal and nonverbal behavior, specify rewards (or punishments for breaking the rules), and tell you what will help you get and keep a job and what won’t. For example, the general advice given throughout this text is to emphasize your positive qualities, to highlight your abilities, and to minimize any negative characteristics or failings. But in some organizations—especially within collectivist cultures such as those of China, Korea, and Japan—workers are expected to show modesty (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). If you stress your own competencies too much, you may be seen as arrogant, brash, and unfit to work in an organization where teamwork and cooperation are emphasized. Table 10.1 identifies some of the ways to be liked at work; as you’ll see, these are essentially rules for communicating. When you join an organization, you learn the rules and norms of a culture that is different from, say, the college culture from which you came or from a former organization for which you worked. Put differently, you become acculturated, much as you would if you moved to a foreign country. As you can appreciate, it’s essential to learn the organization’s culture to know what the rules of the game are, especially the rules of communication. Here we look at a variety of workplace communication patterns and relationships.

Workplace Communication

Communication within the workplace can be described as consisting of four major types: • lateral communication refers to messages between equals—for example, manager to manager, worker to worker. Such messages may move within the same subdivision or department of the organization or across divisions. Lateral communication, for example, is the kind of communication that takes place between two history professors at Illinois State University, between a psychologist at Ohio State and a communicologist at Kent State University, and between a bond trader and an equities trader at a brokerage house. • Upward communication consists of messages sent from the lower levels of a hierarchy to the upper levels—for example, from line worker to manager or from faculty member to dean. This type of communication usually is concerned with job-related activities and problems; ideas for change and suggestions for improvement; and feelings about the organization, work, other workers, or similar issues. • Downward communication consists of messages sent from the higher levels to the lower levels of the hierarchy—for example, messages sent by managers to workers or by deans to faculty members. Common forms of downward communication include orders; explanations of procedures, goals, and changes; and appraisals of workers. • Grapevine messages don’t follow any of the formal lines of communication established in an organization. Much like grapevines, they seem to have a life of their own and go in all different directions. Grapevine messages address topics that you want to discuss in a more interpersonal setting, such as issues that are not yet made public; the real relationship among the regional managers; or possible changes that are being considered but not yet finalized, like new rules on personal Internet usage. Although each of these forms of communication requires somewhat specialized rules and forms, here are a few general communication guidelines: Be respectful of a colleague’s time. This guideline suggests lots of specifics; for example, don’t copy those who don’t need to be copied; be brief and organized; respond to requests as soon as possible and when not possible, alert the other person that, for example, “the figures will be sent as soon as they arrive, probably by the end of the day.” Most important, perhaps, is to be clear. For example, recognize that your own specialty has a technical jargon that others outside your specialty might not know. Clarify when and as needed. Be respectful of a person’s territory. Humans, like animals, are very territorial. This is especially true in the business world where status distinctions are very important and govern the rules of territoriality. For example, don’t invade another’s office or desk space (personally or even with the scent you wear) and don’t overspend your welcome. In brief, treat another’s workspace as someone’s private territory into which you must be invited. Follow the rules for effective electronic communication, which will naturally differ from one workplace to another. Generally, look for rules governing the use of e-mails, Internet game playing, cell phones, social networking, and instant messaging. Discard your Facebook grammar, spelling, acronyms, and smiley faces. These may be seen as not showing sufficient respect for someone high in the company hierarchy. The general suggestion offered for people writing into newsgroups is appropriate here as well; watch how other people write before writing yourself. If you find no guidance here, your best bet is to write as if your e-mail is being graded by your English professor. This means editing for conciseness, proofreading, and spell checking. Use the appropriate medium for sending messages. Generally, the rule is to respond in kind—for example, if a question is asked in e-mail, answer it in e-mail. Avoid touching except in shaking hands. Touching is often interpreted as a sexual overture, so it’s best avoided on the job. Touching may also imply a familiarity that the other person may not welcome. Your best bet is to avoid initiating touching, but don’t be offended if others put their arm on your shoulder or pat you on the back. Be willing to communicate. Be open to hearing others’ comments. Be willing to listen to these messages, even when they’re critical, and demonstrate that willingness with appropriate eye contact, posture, and feedback cues. At the same time, when you’re offering negative comments, be sure to do so privately to avoid damaging the image of those singled out. Allow the person to save face. Understand the variety of purposes the grapevine serves. Its speed and general accuracy make it an ideal medium to carry many of the social communications that effectively bind workers together. So listen carefully; it will give you an insider’s view of the organization and will help you understand those with whom you work. But treat grapevine information as tentative, as possibly, but not necessarily, true. Although grapevine information is generally accurate, it’s often incomplete and ambiguous; it may also contain crucial distortions. Be mindful of all your organizational communications. The potentially offensive joke that you e-mail a colleague can easily be forwarded to the very people who may take offense. treat everyone politely, even the newest intern. Treat that person as if he or she will one day be your boss. He or she may well be.

Networking Relationships In the popular mind, networking is often viewed simply as a technique for securing a job. But it actually has much broader applications; it can be viewed as a process of using other people to help you solve your problems, or at least to offer insights that bear on your problem—for example, how to publish your manuscript, where to look for low-cost auto insurance, how to find an affordable apartment, or how to use Google Drive. At one point, networking took place largely in face-to-face situations, but today networking is largely conducted online—through Facebook and similar sites for things your friends might know or through LinkedIn or similar sites for more professional job-oriented advice and connections. The great value of networking, especially online networking, is that it provides you with quick access to a wealth of specialized information and experts. Networking comes in at least two forms: informal and formal. Informal networking is what we do every day when we find ourselves in a new situation or are unable to answer questions. For example, if you’re new at a school, you might ask someone in your class where to eat, where to shop for new clothes, or who is the best teacher for economics. When you enter a new work environment, you might ask more experienced workers how to perform certain tasks or whom you should approach—or avoid—when you have questions. Formal networking is the same thing, except that it’s much more systematic and strategic. It’s the establishment of connections with people who can help you—answer your questions, get you a job, help you get promoted, help you relocate, or accomplish any task you want to accomplish. For example, you might post your question on LinkedIn or seek the advice of those on the site who are experts in your particular field. At the most obvious level, you can network with people you already know. If you review the list of people in your acquaintance, you’ll probably discover that you know a great number of people with very specialized knowledge who can be of assistance to you in a wide variety of ways. In some cultures (Brazil is one example) friendships are established in part because of potential networking connections (Rector & Neiva, 1996). You also can network with people who know people you know. Thus, you may contact a friend’s friend to find out if the firm he or she works for is hiring. Or you may contact people you have no connection with. Perhaps you’ve read something that someone wrote or you’ve heard the person’s name raised in connection with an area in which you’re interested and you want to get more information. With e-mail addresses so readily available, it’s now quite common to e-mail individuals who have particular expertise and ask them questions you might have. In networking, it’s often recommended that you try to establish relationships that are mutually beneficial. Much as others are useful sources of information for you, you’re likely to be a useful source of information for others. If you can provide others with helpful information, it’s more likely that they will provide helpful information for you. In this way, a mutually satisfying and productive network is established. Some networking experts advise you to develop files and directories of potentially useful sources that you can contact for needed information. For example, if you’re a freelance artist, you might develop a list of people who might be in positions to offer you work or who might lead you to others who might offer such work.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 273). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Authors, editors, art directors, administrative assistants, people in advertising, and a host of others might eventually provide useful leads for such work. Creating a directory of such people and keeping in contact with them on a fairly regular basis can often simplify your obtaining freelance work. Social networking sites such as Plaxo and LinkedIn enable you to do this quickly and easily. Formal networking requires that you take an active part in locating and establishing these connections. Be proactive; initiate contacts rather than waiting for them to come to you. Of course, this can be overdone; you don’t want to rely on people to do work you can easily do yourself. Yet if you’re also willing to help others, there is nothing wrong in asking these same people to help you. If you’re respectful of their time and expertise, it’s likely that your networking attempts will be responded to favorably. Following up your requests with thank-you notes will help you establish networks that can be ongoing, productive relationships rather than one-shot affairs. Table 10.2 summarizes some of these suggestions in terms of politeness, one of the most important qualities of effective networking.

Mentoring Relationships

mentoring is a partnership in which an experienced individual (the mentor) helps someone who is less experienced (the protégé) learn how to achieve his or her goals (Caproni, 2012; Mullen, 2005). Some organizational experts argue that having a mentor is crucial for rising in a hierarchy and for developing your skills (Dahle, 2004). Mentoring is beneficial to the organization; it improves morale, decreases turnover, and helps position junior members for advancement. Mentoring is also beneficial to the individuals, providing each with new ideas and new perspectives (Metz, 2013). An accomplished teacher, for example, might mentor a younger teacher who has newly arrived or who has never taught before (Nelson, Pearson, & Kurylo, 2008). The mentor guides the new person through the organizational maze, teaches the strategies and techniques for success, and otherwise communicates his or her accumulated knowledge and experience to the protégé. The mentoring relationship provides an ideal learning environment. It’s usually a one-on-one relationship between expert and novice, a relationship that is supportive and trusting. There’s a mutual and open sharing of information and thoughts about the job. The relationship enables the novice to try new skills under the guidance of an expert, to ask questions, and to obtain the feedback so necessary in learning complex skills. Mentoring is perhaps best characterized as a relationship in which the experienced and powerful mentor empowers the novice, giving the novice the tools and techniques for gaining the same power the mentor holds. Mentoring is frequently conducted online. One great advantage of e-mentoring is the flexibility it allows for communication. E-mail messages, for example, can be sent and received at times that are convenient for the individuals involved (Stewart, 2006).

Because the individuals may be separated geographically, it’s possible to have mentor– protégé relationships with people in foreign countries and in widely differing cultures— relationships that would be impossible without online communication. Still another advantage is that persons with disabilities (whether mentor or protégé) who cannot travel easily can still enjoy and profit from e-mentoring relationships (Burgstahler, 2007). The mentoring relationship has been found to be one of the three primary paths for career achievement among African American men and women (Bridges, 1996). And in a study of middle-level managers, those who had mentors and participated in mentoring relationships were found to get more promotions and higher salaries than those who didn’t have mentors (Scandura, 1992). More recent research also finds that college students benefit in a variety of ways from having a mentor. At the end of the first year, mentored students had a higher GPA, showed a higher retention rate, and had completed more credits than students who weren’t mentored (Campbell & Campbell, 2007). At the same time, the mentor benefits from clarifying his or her thoughts, seeing the job from the perspective of a newcomer, and considering and formulating answers to a variety of questions. Much as a teacher learns from teaching, a mentor learns from mentoring. It should also be noted that social networking sites, designed originally as places where people could make new friends and stay in touch with old ones, are increasingly being used for both mentoring and networking. Some sites are “by invitation only” and have been compared to gated communities or exclusive country clubs. These sites seem designed not for friendships but solely for mentoring and networking (MacMillan & Lehman, 2007). For example, Reuters Space is a private online community specifically for hedge fund managers to network, and INmobile is designed for executives in the wireless industry.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 275). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Romantic Relationships at Work

Unlike television depictions, in which workers are always best friends who would do anything for one another and in which the characters move in and out of office romances with little difficulty (at least with no difficulty that can’t be resolved in 24 minutes), real-life office romance can be complicated. Opinions vary widely concerning workplace romances. Some organizations, on the assumption that romantic relationships are basically detrimental to the success of the workplace, have explicit rules prohibiting romantic involvements. And these rules are becoming stricter (Wilkie, 2013). In some organizations (including the military), members can be fired for such relationships. In other organizations, the prohibitions are unwritten and informal but nevertheless clearly in opposition to office romances. Other organizations have a more lenient policy and recognize that office romances are inevitable. And even the Huffington Post says that office romance is “not off-limits” (Paul, 2013). ADvAntAGES oF romAnCE At work On the positive side, the work environment seems a perfect place to meet a potential romantic partner. After all, by virtue of the fact that you’re working in the same office, probably you are both interested in the same field, have similar training and ambitions, and can spend considerable time together—all factors that foster the development of a successful interpersonal relationship. Also, given that Americans are marrying later in life, they are less likely to meet prospective partners in school; so work seems the logical alternative. Published figures differ about the frequency of office romances. According to a 2009 survey by CareerBuilder.com, 40 percent of U.S. workers said that they had dated a fellow worker, 18 percent reported two or more office romances, and another 12 percent are eager to engage in such relationships (Pearce, 2010). Another survey reported that 58 percent of workers had dated a coworker. Of these, 20 percent admitted to a romantic relationship with a boss and 15 percent to a relationship with someone they supervised (Hemple & Berner, 2007). Even Bill and Melinda Gates met at work. Office romances can lead to greater work satisfaction. For example, if you’re romantically attracted to another worker, it can make going to work, working together, relationship is good and mutually satisfying, the individuals are likely to develop empathy for each other and to act in ways that are supportive, cooperative, and friendly; in short, the workers are more likely to show all the characteristics of effective communication noted throughout this text. To achieve these advantages, management consultants advise romantic couples at work to, for example (Losee & Olen, 2007; Nemko, 2013): • Be honest about what you want, for example, a quick office fling or something potentially more permanent. • Make sure you have enough in common to warrant a relationship. • Enter relationships with colleagues on the same level rather than with subordinates or superiors. • Keep your relationship private or as private as you can. Avoid public displays of affection (PDAs). DISADvAntAGES oF romAnCE At work Even when the relationship is good for the two individuals, however, it may not be good for other workers. Seeing the loving couple together every day may generate office gossip that may prove destructive. Others may think the lovers are a team that has to be confronted as a pair, and that you can’t criticize one without incurring the wrath of the other. Workplace romantic relationships may cause problems for management when, for example, a promotion is to be made or relocation decisions are necessary. Can you legitimately ask one lover to move to Boston and the other to move to San Francisco? Will it prove difficult for management to promote one lover who then becomes the supervisor of the other? The workplace also puts pressure on the individuals. Most organizations, at least in the United States, are highly competitive; one person’s success often means another’s failure. In this competitive context, the normal self-disclosures that regularly accompany increased intimacy (which often reveal weaknesses, doubts, and misgivings) may actually prove a liability. When the romance goes bad or when it’s one-sided, there are even more disadvantages. One obvious problem is that it can be stressful for the former lovers to see each other regularly and perhaps to work together. Other workers may feel they have to take sides, being supportive of one partner and critical of the other. This can easily cause friction throughout the organization. In addition, when an office romance breaks up, it’s usually the more competent and employable person who leaves for another job, leaving the firm with the less valuable employee and the need to retrain someone to take over the departed lover’s functions (Jones, 2004). Still another and perhaps more serious issue is the potential for charges of sexual harassment, especially if the romance was between a supervisor and a worker. Whether the charges are legitimate or are the result of an unhappy love affair and unrelated to the organization, management will find itself in the middle, facing lawsuits and time and money lost from investigating and ultimately acting on the charges. The generally negative attitude of management toward office love affairs and the problems in dealing with the normal stress of both work and romance seem to present significant obstacles to such relationships and to the workplace, so workers are generally advised by management not to romance their colleagues. Friendships, on the other hand, seem the much safer course. Companies often encourage friendships by setting up sports teams, dinners, and lounge and exercise areas. In fact, research finds that office friendships increase employees’ job satisfaction and commitment to the organization and decrease turnover (Morrison, 2004). And friendships often serve as the basis for mentoring and networking, topics already addressed.

The Dark Side of Interpersonal Relationships

10.5 Explain the guidelines for (and follow these in your own relationships) dealing with jealously and violence. In all interpersonal relationships—friendship, love, family, and workplace—there exists the possibility for what has come to be called the dark side of relationships. In any interpersonal interaction, there exists not only the potential for productive and meaningful communication but also the potential for unproductive and destructive communication. Here we consider just a couple of dark sides: jealousy and violence.

Jealousy

Jealousy is similar to envy; in both cases, we experience a negative emotion about our relationship and we often use the terms interchangeably. But they are actually very different. Envy is an emotional feeling that we experience when we desire what someone else has or has more of than we do. And so we might feel envious of a friend who has lots of friends or romantic partners or money when we have significantly less. When we feel envy, we may feel that we are inferior to or of less importance than someone else. Jealousy, on the other hand, is a form of anger we have when we feel our relationship is in danger due to some rival. Jealousy is a reaction to relationship threat: if you feel that someone is moving in on your relationship partner, you may experience jealousy—especially if you feel that this interloper is succeeding. Jealousy is not an uncommon reaction and is actually considered a logical reaction to relationship threat (Berscheid, 1983; Knobloch & Schmeizer, 2008). Usually, the rival is a potential romantic partner, but it could also be a close friend or a job that occupies all our partner’s time and thoughts. When we feel jealousy, we may feel angry and anxious. As you can expect, the closer a relationship is, the more likely it is that jealousy would be experienced (Attridge, 2013). As you know, jealousy is a big part of social media; with increased use of Facebook comes increased jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Among the reasons for this is that, through Facebook, one partner can find out things about the other that might not have been revealed face-to-face. And of course such social media sites provide great opportunities for reconnecting with former romantic partners, which can easily create or increase jealousy (Sarkis, 2001). thE pArtS oF JEAloUSy Jealousy has at least three components (Erber & Erber, 2011): cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. • Cognitive jealousy. Cognitive jealousy involves your suspicious thinking, worrying, and imagining the different scenarios in which your partner may be interested in another person. • Emotional jealousy. Emotional jealousy involves the feelings you have when you see your partner, say, laughing or talking intimately with a rival, or kissing. Or, perhaps you become jealous if your partner spends too much time on Internet relationships. • Behavioral jealousy. Behavioral jealousy refers to what you actually do in response to the jealous feelings and emotions, for example, reading your partner’s e-mail, looking on Facebook for incriminating photos, or going through the back seat of the car with the proverbial fine-tooth comb. Sometimes we feel jealousy because of some suspicion that a rival is looking to steal our relationship partner. In this case, we may do a variety of things to guard our relationship and our relationship partner, a process called mate guarding (Buss, 2000; Erber & Erber, 2011). One popular strategy is concealment. We don’t introduce our partner to any potential rival and avoid interaction with any potential rivals. Another strategy is vigilance; we constantly look out for occasions when we might lose our partner to a rival. The least suspicious glance becomes a major problem. Still another strategy is to monopolize the partner: to be together constantly and to avoid leaving the partner without anything to do for too long a time. Of course, we also experience jealousy if our rival actually succeeded. Much research has reported that heterosexual men and women experience jealousy for different reasons that are rooted in our evolutionary development (Buller, 2005; Buss, 2000; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004). Basically, research finds that men experience jealousy from their partner being physically intimate with another man, whereas women experience jealousy from their partner being emotionally intimate with another woman. The evolutionary reason given is that men provided food and shelter for the family and would resent his partner’s physical intimacy with another because he would then be providing food and shelter for another man’s child. Women, because they depended on men for food and shelter, became especially jealous when their partner was emotionally intimate with another because this could mean he might leave her and she’d thus lose the food and shelter protection. Not all research supports this finding and not all theory supports this evolutionary explanation (Harris, 2003). For example, among Chinese men, only 25 percent reported physical infidelity was the more distressing, while 75 percent reported emotional infidelity to be more distressing. Another commonly assumed gender difference is that jealous men are more prone to respond with violence. This assumption, however, does not seem to be the case; men and women apparently are equally likely to respond with violence (Harris, 2003).

DEAlInG wIth JEAloUSy So what do you do when you experience jealousy (short of violence)? Communication researchers find several popular but generally negative interactive responses (Dindia & Timmerman, 2003; Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). You may: • nonverbally express your displeasure, for example, cry or express hurt. • threaten to become violent or actually engage in violence. • be verbally aggressive, for example, be sarcastic or accusatory. • withdraw affection or be silent, sometimes denying that anything is wrong. On the more positive side are responses known as integrative communication: messages that attempt to work things out with your partner, such as self-disclosing your feelings, being honest, practicing effective conflict management, listening actively—in short, all the skills we talk about in this text.

Violence

This dark side is perhaps most obvious in the various forms of relationship violence. Before reading about this important but often-neglected topic, examine your present relationship for relationship violence by responding to the following questions: Do either of you: ____ 1. get angry to the point of making the other person fearful? ____ 2. engage in behavior that could be considered humiliating to the other person? ____ 3. verbally abuse the other? ____ 4. threaten the other with violence? ____ 5. engage in slapping, hitting, or pushing the other? ____ 6. throw things in anger? ____ 7. make accusations of sexual infidelity? ____ 8. force the other to have sex? ____ 9. use abusive sexual terms in reference to the other? These nine items are all signs of a violent relationship (it only takes one to make a relationship violent). Items 1 to 3 are examples of verbal or emotional abuse, 4 to 6 of physical abuse, and 7 to 9 of sexual abuse—all of which are explained more fully in the text. If any of these questions describes your relationship, you may wish to seek professional help (which is likely available on your campus). Additional suggestions are offered in the text and are readily available online. Source: These questions were drawn from a variety of sources, for example, the websites of SUNY at Buffalo Counseling Services; The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Women’s Heath Care Physicians; and the University of Texas at Austin, Counseling and Mental Health Center. typES oF rElAtIonShIp vIolEnCE Three types of relationship violence may be distinguished: verbal or emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse (Rice, 2007). • verbal or emotional abuse may include humiliating you; engaging in economic abuse such as controlling the finances or preventing you from working; and/or isolating, criticizing, or stalking you. Some research shows that people who use verbal or emotional abuse are more likely than others to escalate to physical abuse (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). • physical abuse includes threats of violence as well as pushing, hitting, slapping, kicking, choking, throwing things at you, and breaking things. • Sexual abuse involves touching that is unwanted, accusations of sexual infidelity without reason, forced sex, and references to you in abusive sexual terms. Table 10.3 offers a brief comparison and summary of violent and nonviolent relationships.

A great deal of research has centered on trying to identify the warning signs of relationship violence. Here, for example, are a few signs compiled by the State University of New York at Buffalo; you might want to use this list to start thinking about your own relationship or those that you know of (ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/ warnings/shtml). It may be a warning sign if your partner: • belittles, insults, or ignores you. • controls pieces of your life, for example, the way you dress or who you can be friends with. • gets jealous without reason. • can’t handle sexual frustration without anger. • is so angry or threatening that you’ve changed your life to avoid provoking additional anger. As you might expect, there are a variety of consequences to relationship violence: physical injuries, psychological injuries, and economic “injuries” (cdc.gov/ncic/ factsheets/ipvfacts.htm). Perhaps the image that comes most quickly to mind when the issue of relationship violence comes up is that of physical violence, and that element is certainly a big part of overall relationship violence. Physical injuries may range from scratches and bruises to broken bones, knife wounds, and central nervous system damage. The results of such injuries can range from minor to death. Even when physical injuries are relatively minor, however, psychological injuries may be major and may include, for example, depression; anxiety; fear of intimacy; and, of course, low self-esteem. In fact, relationship violence often attacks self-esteem to the point where the victims come to believe that the violence against them was and is justified. In addition to the obvious physical and psychological injuries, consider the economic impact. It’s been estimated that, in the United States, relationship violence costs approximately $6.2 billion for physical assaults and almost $500 million for rape. Interpersonal violence also results in lost days of work. The Center for Disease Control estimates that interpersonal violence costs the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs in lost work each year in the United States. Additional economic costs are incurred when interpersonal violence prevents women from maintaining jobs or continuing their education. DEAlInG wIth rElAtIonShIp vIolEnCE Whether you’re a victim or a perpetrator of relationship violence, it is important to seek professional help (and, of course, the help of friends and family where appropriate). In addition, here are several additional suggestions (utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/relavio/relaviol.html). If your partner has been violent: • Realize that you’re not alone. There are other people who suffer similarly, and there is a mechanism in place to help you. • Realize that you’re not at fault. You did not deserve to be the victim of violence. • Plan for your safety. Violence, if it occurred once, is likely to occur again, and part of your thinking needs to be devoted to your own safety.

• Know your resources—the phone numbers you need to contact for help, and the locations of money and a spare set of keys. If you are the violent partner: • Realize that you too are not alone and that help and support are available. • Know that you can change. It won’t necessarily be easy or quick, but you can change. • Own your own behaviors; take responsibility. This is an essential step if any change is to occur. Relationship violence is not an inevitable part of interpersonal relationships; in fact, it occurs in a minority of relationships. Yet it’s important to know that there is the potential for violence in all relationships, as there is the potential for friendship, love, support, and all the positive things we look for in relationships. Knowing the difference between productive and destructive relationships seems the best way to make sure that your own relationships are as you want them to be. Table 10.4 offers a brief summary of jealousy and relationship violence.

DeVito, Joseph A.. Interpersonal Communication Book, The (Page 281). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.