fundamental part of the work performed by librarians within the reference process . Librarians In drawing upon communication theory to analyze and understand situations such . and the relationship-building aspect of library encounters Poster promoting better interpersonal communications in the workplace, showing an angry man seated behind a desk and a cowering subordinate. (Work Projects Administration Poster Collection (Library of Congress). Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. or platonic relationships, interpersonal communication and. communication theories, including those that explain how relation- ships are initiated and then the axioms of one specific approach, the work of the Palo Alto. Group. .. Building on Goffman's () notion of identity and facework, Brown.
Our rules are influenced by our assessment of the ratio of risks to benefits of disclosing With these five criteria, personal and group privacy rules are developed, but disclosure of private information necessitates the inclusion of others within the boundary of knowledge, which demands an understanding between parties for how to coordinate ownership of knowledge. Boundary coordination[ edit ] An individual's private information is protected by the individual's boundaries.
The permeability of these boundaries are ever-changing, and allow certain parts of the public access to certain pieces of information belonging to the individual. Once private information is shared, co-owners must coordinate the boundaries of privacy and disclosure based on boundary permeability, boundary linkage, and boundary ownership. Boundary permeability refers to the nature of the invisible divisions that keep private information from being known outside of an individual or particular group.The Power of Relationship Building - Jose Gutierrez - TEDxBentleyU
When private information is kept with one owner, the boundaries are said to be thick because there is less possibility for information to make its way out into the public sphere. Once information is shared to one or more persons, the boundaries for that private information expand, become more permeable, and are considered thin. For example, doctors and patients are linked to each other in such a way that private information is passed within their boundaries constantly.
These linkages can be strong or weak depending on how information was shared or whether a co-owner wanted to know or was prepared to learn a new piece of information. Case in point, the link between an organization and a spy meant to infiltrate the organization is weak because the two are not coordinated on how information will be maintained private or disclosed.
When working to mutually create the boundary of privacy it is key for all parties to have a clear understanding of whether information should be shared, who it should be shared with, and when it should be shared. As new guests are invited, they become an owner of the information and are bound to the rules of privacy maintenance, or else the surprise could be ruined.
Boundary turbulence[ edit ] Often, boundaries are not coordinated as well as they should be to maintain the level of privacy or exposure desired by owners — this leads to problems known as boundary turbulence.
The coordination of shared boundaries is key to avoiding over-sharing. When the boundaries are unclear, owners may come into conflict with one another. Turbulence among co-owners is caused when rules are not mutually understood by co-owners and when the management of private information comes into conflict with the expectations each owner had,  which can happen for a number of reasons. Boundary turbulence can be caused by mistakes, such as an uninvited party overhearing private information causing weak boundary linkage or a disclosure an owner might make under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
Disclosure to a new party was not the intent, but, when it happens, other co-owners can feel that their expectations of maintaining boundaries have been violated. In addition, boundary turbulence occurs when a co-owner intentionally breaks the coordinated boundary of privacy to disclose private information. The daughter in this case must weigh the risks of breaking the family privacy boundary against the benefits of the doctor being better informed of her father's condition.
Lastly, boundary turbulence can also occur when there have not been pre-existing rules for a situation. For example, with the emergence of social media and, in particular, Facebookboundary rules had not been established. As parents began to join Facebook and "friend" their children, the children felt turbulence.
There was a perception of privacy invasion between the parent-child relationship. In these cases, the goal of each party is to reduce turbulence by reestablishing and coordinating boundaries. Research focused on secrets and topic avoidance, such as questions of concealment to stepfamily members feeling caught, and parents-adolescent conversations about sex.
For example, work by Hawk and his colleagues explore perceived parental invasions from the view of adolescents in reaction to such issues as control attempts, solicitation of information, and conflict outcomes.
The research found that couples frame miscarriage as a shared but distinct experience and that both members exert rights of ownership over the information.
Theories of Interpersonal Relationship
Couples' privacy rules centered on issues of social support and others' need to know about the loss. Even though couples described their privacy rules as implicitly understood, they also recalled having explicit conversations to develop rules.
An example of the social penetration theory can be seen when one thinks of a hypothetical situation such as meeting someone for the first time. The depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy a relationship has accomplished.
When two individuals meet for the first time, it is the cultural expectation that only impersonal information will be exchanged. This could include information such as names, occupations, age of the conversation participants, as well as various other impersonal information. However, if both members participating in the dialogic exchange decide that they would like to continue or further the relationship, with the continuation of message exchanges, the more personal the information exchanged will become.
Altman and Taylor defined these as the depth and breadth of self-disclosure. According to Griffin, the definition of depth is "the degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individuals life" and the definition of breadth is "the range of areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place.
Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information 2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development 3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached 4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. Online communication seems to follow a different set of rules. Rather than slowly disclosing personal thoughts, emotions, and feelings to others, anonymous individuals online are able to disclose personal information immediately and without the consequence of having their identity revealed.
Ledbetter notes that Facebook users self-disclose by posting personal information, pictures, hobbies, and messages. The study finds that the user's level of self-disclosure is directly related to the level of interdependence on others.
Theories of Interpersonal Relationship
This may result in negative psychological and relational outcomes as studies show that people are more likely to disclose more personal information than they would in face to face communication, primarily due to the heightened level of control within the context of the online communication medium.
In other words, those with poor social skills may prefer the medium of Facebook to show others who they are because they have more control.
The reason that self disclosure is labeled as risky, is because, individuals often undergo a sense of uncertainty and susceptibility in revealing personal information that has the possibility of being judged in a negative way by the receiver.
Hence, the reason that face-to-face communication must evolve in stages when an initial relationship develops. Their theory became the foundation from which scholars in the field of communication approached the study of relationships. Ubiquitous communication[ edit ] The Palo Alto Group maintains that a person's presence alone results in them, consciously or not, expressing things about themselves and their relationships with others i.
This ubiquitous interaction leads to the establishment of "expectations" and "patterns" which are used to determine and explain relationship types. Expectations[ edit ] Individuals enter communication with others having established expectations for their own behavior as well as the behavior of those they are communicating with.
- Communication privacy management theory
These expectations are either reinforced during the interaction, or new expectations are established which will be used in future interactions. These new expectations are created by new patterns of interaction, established expectations are a result of established patterns of interaction. Patterns of interaction[ edit ] Established patterns of interaction are created when a trend occurs regarding how two people interact with each other. There are two patterns of particular importance to the theory which form two kinds of relationships.
Symmetrical relationships[ edit ] These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two people responding to one and other in the same way. This is a common pattern of interaction within power struggles.
Complementary relationships[ edit ] These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two people responding to one and other in opposing ways.
An example of such a relationship would be when one person is argumentative while the other is quiet. Relational control[ edit ] Relational control refers to who, within a relationship, is in control of it.
The pattern of behavior between partners over time, not any individual's behavior, defines the control within a relationship. There are three kinds of responses: One-down responses are submissive to, or accepting of, another's assertions. One-up responses are in opposition to, or counter, another's assertions.
One-across responses are neutral in nature.
When complementary exchanges are frequently occurring within a relationship, and the parties at each end of the exchange tend to remain uniform, it is a good indication of a complementary relationship existing. Symmetrical exchanges[ edit ] Symmetrical exchanges occur when one partner's assertion is countered with a reflective response.
So, when a one-up assertion is met with a one-up response, or when a one-down assertions is met with a one-down response, a symmetrical exchange occurs. When symmetrical exchanges are frequently occurring within a relationship, it is a good indication of a symmetrical relationship existing. Theory of intertype relationships[ edit ] Main article: Socionics Socionics has proposed a theory of intertype relationships between psychological types based on a modified version of C.
Jung 's theory of psychological types.
Socionics allocates 16 types of the relations — from most attractive and comfortable up to disputed. The understanding of a nature of these relations helps to solve a number of problems of the interpersonal relations, including aspects of psychological and sexual compatibility. The researches of married couples by Aleksandr Bukalov et al.
The study of socionic type allocation in casually selected married couples confirmed the main rules of the theory of intertype relations in socionics. This can apply to words or body language. Effective Communication Lasswell introduced an important model of five levels of communication identified from his experiences in the second world war, elements of which survive in more developed modern models: The Five Ws Lasswell's model has been further developed and modernised and is now referred to as the 'Five Ws' and this model has been widely used, particularly when managing change.
However, addressing the 'Five Ws' is an essential element of all communication, getting this right is the first step in the process and is dependent upon what is required to be communicated at the time. This is particularly important when managing change in an organisation. Who should be told? Everyone who needs to be told about something should be told.
Interpersonal communication - Wikipedia
It is advisable to relate the communication to all as soon as possible. Openness is the key to making everyone feel involved although there will always be some things which are not disseminated as widely as others. Where appropriate, communicate widely so that individuals are given the opportunity to influence the process and local ownership is gained.