Chapter 2: Background
2.1.2 Interpersonal communication
Griffin (2005, page 52) defines interpersonal communication as the “process of creating unique shared meaning”. There are a number of elements that set interpersonal communication apart from other forms of communication (e.g. mass communication). In interpersonal communication there are few participants involved, the participants are in close physical proximity to each other, there are many sensory channels used, and the feedback is immediate (Gouran et al. 1994).
With these definitions in mind, two main aspects emerge where Shannon’s communication model does not fit: First, interpersonal communication is dy- namic and bilateral, and can therefore not be conceived as a linear and literal transmission of information from a sender to a receiver. Second, interper- sonal communication is primarily about the exchange of meaning. A model therefore must also account for the semantic levels of communication. In this regard, Roszak (1986) criticises the unique way in which Shannon de- fines information as merely a measure of the difficulty in transmitting the sequences produced by some information source. Consequently, as Roszak points out, Shannon’s model is incapable in distinguishing messages with valuable meaning from pure nonsense.
Figure 2.2 shows an adapted version of the Shannon-Weaver model which incorporates several modifications to remedy these shortcomings. A sender encodes an idea into a message and sends it via a channel to a receiver who decodes the message and tries to reconstruct an image of the idea. Commu- nication is successful if the image created at the receiver side corresponds to
the initial idea of the sender.
Sender
Receiver
Feedback Message Channel encode decode semantic noise semantic noise physical noise idea imageFigure 2.2: The Shannon-Weaver model of interpersonal communication, simplified from DeVito (1998, page 12).
Feedback: Knowing the success or failure of a sent message is important for the sender as it provides guidance when selecting the content and the encoding strategy of following messages. In face-to-face communication, the receiver can indicate successful decoding of a message into something mean- ingful by the occasional “mm-hm”, “yes, I see”, subtle head nods, smiles, and so on. Knowing that a receiver has been able to decode messages allows the sender to continue encoding in the same manner, or even to speed up. On the contrary, if a receiver indicates a potential decoding error with a surprised look or a “sorry?”, “hold on”, and so on, it gives the sender the chance to re- peat, re-encode, and clarify. This self regulating mechanism between sender and receiver is accounted for in the adapted communication model by the addition of a feedback loop1. The inclusion of feedback significantly changes
the conception of communication from being a static and one-way informa- tion transmission of information to being a dynamic system with the purpose of meaning transfer in which sender and receiver are mutually dependent.
1The concept of feedback was introduced by Norbert Wiener (1948) roughly at the same
Including meaning: While the terms encoding and decoding of messages were merely used in the context of signal (symbol) conversion in the original model, the same terms are used in the adapted model within a higher seman- tic context. The sender is the encoder who converts ideas into messages. The receiver acts as the decoder who tries to reconstruct an adequate image of the initial idea by means of interpretation. In interpersonal communication, decoding and encoding are therefore referred to as complex cognitive (instead of technical) processes. Therefore, in a telephone call it is not enough for a receiver to only hear a message properly; he or she must understand it in order for communication to be successful.
Semantic noise: Including the semantic level into a model of communi- cation introduces a new problem. What, for example, if the sender and the receiver speak entirely different languages? In that case verbal communica- tion is bound to fail as the receiver is not capable of decoding the messages the sender encoded. This problem is accounted for in the adapted model through the inclusion of semantic noise at the decoding as well as the encod- ing side. At a basic level, in order for communication to be successful and to reduce semantic noise to a minimum, it is necessary that the sender and receiver share a common set of vocabulary, or more generally, a common set of meaning-to-symbol-associations. The decoding of messages can be tricky if they contain a certain level of ambiguity. In these cases, the decoding process involves a lot of interpretation where contextual factors such as the current situation, the relationship between sender and receiver, and personal experiences play crucial roles.
The Lasswell Formula: The impact of the relation between sender and receiver, as well as the impact of the choice of the appropriate channel, is of pivotal importance for communication processes. Building on the adapted Shannon-Weaver model, the sociologist Lasswell therefore recommended the consideration of five elements when studying the social aspects of communi- cation (see Figure 2.3).
Lasswell’s primary interest was in mass communication. Therefore he explicitly included the effects of communication as a separate element. How-
Who? Sender Says What? Messenger In What Medium? Channel To Whom? Receiver With What Effect? Impact
Figure 2.3: The Lasswell formula (Lasswell 1948).
ever, breaking down communication into the given five elements is also help- ful for studying interpersonal communication. Guided by this framework, the following sections briefly outline selective findings from communication studies that are relevant to this thesis.
Message and channel: Messages in interpersonal communication can be composed as verbal or nonverbal expressions, which are then conveyed via the auditory and visual channels2. While verbal messages (e.g. spoken or written words) carry the formal content of a message, non-verbal messages add to and complete their meaning, provide feedback from listeners, and facilitate coordination. Argyle (1992, pages 8-12) lists the tone of voice, pauses, gestures, and gaze as non-verbal signals a speaker typically emits while speaking. Likewise, he finds vocalisations, gestures, facial expressions, posture, and gaze to be typical non-verbal signals mainly for the purpose of feedback on the side of the listener.
Eye-contact and gaze direction play a significant role in human social behaviour in general and in the coordination process during conversations in particular (Kendon 1967). As Argyle and Cook (1976) point out, speak- ers and auditors use gaze during face-to-face conversations to exchange and maintain roles, to regulate turn-taking behaviour, to signal attention or bore- dom, and to give and seek feedback in the form of short glances.
When engaged in a conversation, people are not always aware of the many non-verbal messages they are permanently encoding, sending, receiving, and decoding. Yet, according to Argyle and Dean (1965), the choice and the fre- quency of certain non-verbal messages are neither random nor independent of
2The olfactory and tactile channels also play roles in interpersonal communication.
each other. Argyle and Dean (1965) suggest a theory in which an equilibrium for a certain level of intimacy is developed between people, where intimacy is a joint function of eye-contact, physical proximity, intimacy of topic, or smiling. There is a certain level of intimacy participants feel comfortable with and which they try to maintain. Therefore, if the intimacy equilibrium is disturbed because of the increase or decrease of one component, other components compensate to re-establish the equilibrium. For example, if two people increase the physical distance between themselves, they decrease their level of intimacy, which they can then re-establish by an increase in smiling or eye-contact (for example).
Sender and receiver: Communication styles differ between people. The impact of culture, power relations, social class, or gender have been studied in depth. Findings in that field reach far beyond the scope of this thesis. The next paragraphs can therefore only selectively show two types of differences that can be expected when comparing communication first between friends and strangers, and second, between men and women. Differences based on the familiarity and gender of communicators were selected based on their relevance during the remainder of this thesis.
As previously mentioned, for successful decoding of messages, sender and receiver have to share a common set of vocabulary or common ground, which is some shared information that can be taken for granted and that each assumes the other possesses (Argyle 1992, page 9). Between people who know one another well or who belong to the same group or community, or who work together, there is extensive common ground (Clark 1985). It can therefore be expected that the better people know each other, the easier it is for them to communicate. In contrast, when strangers meet for the first time, they have to get to know each other and build up a common ground during the course of the conversation. Communication patterns are then likely to be dominated by social protocols that reflect appropriate behaviour for politeness, respect, and friendliness. Sharing an idea with a stranger thus involves more work and is therefore less efficient.
Men and women tend to communicate in different ways, especially when talking to a same gender friend. There is a general consensus in the literature
that women engage more in self-disclosure, and talk about more intimate top- ics to other women, while men avoid externalising emotion and instead are more oriented toward some external task, competition, or activity sharing. Wright (1982) summarises that “for men friendship tends to be a side-by-side relationship, with the partners mutually oriented to some external task or activity; while for women friendship tends to be a face-to-face relationship, with the partners mutually oriented to a personalised knowledge of and con- cern for one another.” Hall (1990) reviewed findings of several studies on non-verbal gender differences which are aligned with this characterisation. These findings include that female faces are more expressive, that women smile more, and that women gaze more at others than males do.
Effect: Lasswell introduced the question for possible effects or outcomes to the study of communication. An outcome of particular interest for the study of mass media is, for example, the degree to which a sender is able to per- suade or deceive his audience. In the context of cooperative communication, however, it is assumed that both sender and receiver have a common problem that they are trying to solve. The desired outcome of communication in this case would be that a message is understood and ultimately helps the sender and receiver to reach their common goal.
The next section explains the concept of collaboration as a special case of interpersonal communication.