PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIGlkPSJHcm91cF8xMzc0IiB3aWR0aD0iMzAuMTMyIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjM2LjU0OSIgZGF0YS1uYW1lPSJHcm91cCAxMzc0IiB2aWV3Qm94PSIwIDAgMzAuMTMyIDM2LjU0OSI+CiAgICA8ZGVmcz4KICAgICAgICA8c3R5bGU+CiAgICAgIC

COMM 1011- Fundamentals of Communication

Chapter 1

University of Colorado Denver

The Importance of Studying Human Communication

1.1 Explain why it is important to study human communication.

As you begin this course, several questions may arise. First, you may wonder exactly how the study of human communication differs from other studies of humans, such as psychology. Communication differs from other social science disciplines because it focuses exclusively on the exchange of messages to create meaning. Scholars in communication explore what, when, where, and why humans interact (Emanuel, 2007). They do so to increase our understanding of how people communicate and to help individuals improve their abilities to communicate in a wide variety of contexts. In addition, unlike most social sciences, the study of communication has a long history — reaching back to the classical era of Western civilization when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote about the important role of communication in politics, the courts, and learning (National Communication Association [NCA], 2003; Rogers & Chafee, 1983). However, the ability to speak effectively and persuasively has been valued since the beginning of recorded history. As early as 3200-2800 BCE, the Precepts of Kagemni and Ptah-Hotep commented on communication (NCA, 2003).

Second, you may question why anyone needs to study communication; after all, most people have probably been doing a reasonably good job of it thus far. And isn't most communication knowledge just common sense? Unfortunately, it is not. If good communication skills were just common sense, then communication would not so often go awry. In fact, most people struggle with how to communicate well: they don't know how to listen so that other people feel heard; they aren't sure how to convince others to see their point of view; and they often aren't able to settle disagreements with people they care about deeply. Because communication is a complex activity, we need to learn skills that allow us to adapt our communication so others will hear, understand, connect with and care for us. Think of times when you felt others failed to communicate effectively with you. Have you ever felt that one of your teachers talked down to you? Have you had a relationship end because you and your partner had a misunderstanding? Or have you failed to get what you wanted — a job, an invitation, your parents' support —because you couldn't figure out how to interact with others in specific contexts? In sum, talking is not equivalent to communicating. We can drown others in words, but if they do not understand, connect with, and care about those words, then we have not communicated with them at all.

Now that we have so many ways to communicate and maintain relationships with others, some scholars have begun to ask if it is possible to have too much communication. Do you think this is possible or likely? To learn how some communication scholars answer this question, see Alternative View: Co-rummation: When Too Much Talk Is as Bad as Not Enough.

Alternative View

Co-rumination: When Too Much Talk Is As Bad As Not Enough

You have probably heard that to have good relationships, people need to "communicate more." However, sometimes communicating a lot can have negative effects. One type of "over-communication" that can cause harm is co-rumination. Co-rumination occurs when we talk-again-and again-and again—with others about a problem in our lives. It has been linked to negative outcomes such as depression, anxiety, binge eating, binge drinking, and self-harm (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008).

Co-rumination often occurs among friends because that is to whom we turn most often when we encounter problems. In an attempt to console or support each other, such as when a breakup occurs, friends often tolerate or even encourage each other to talk extensively about what happened and how they feel. Individuals are most likely to engage in co-rumination during adolescence and young adulthood.

Why is co-rumination unhealthy? During co-rumination, participants' communication focuses incessantly on the issue and its negative effects rather than on solutions. It can even damage relationships, causing "depression contagion." If the co-ruminating friend repeatedly draws the other into negative conversations, it can make both more depressed and lead the friend to avoid the co-ruminator, as such discussions may make one feel worse and helpless to do anything about it. Consequently, experts suggest that a goal should be to balance "problem talk" with positive activities and that one should revisit their joys and successes with friends just as they would their problems (Schwartz-Mette & Smith, 2018).

Can you think of other occasions when people talk "too much"?

SOURCES: Nolen-Hoeksema S., Wisco, B., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychologica/ Science, 3, 400-424.

Schwartz-Mette, R. A., & Smith, R. L. (2018). When does co-rumination facilitate depression contagion in adolescent friendships? Investigating intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(6), 912- 924.

Finally, you may think of communication as a set of skills but believe that they are easily learned and wonder why there is an entire course (even a major!) that focuses on communication. Although it is true that every day people use communication to accomplish practical goals such as inviting a friend to see a movie, resolving a conflict with a colleague, or persuading the city council to install speed bumps in their neighborhood, communication is more than just a set of skills, like baking, that one can use in a variety of contexts and settings with little alteration. Rather, communication is an intricate process whose effective performance requires an in-depth understanding of how it works and the ability to apply one's critical thinking skills to communication experiences to learn from and improve them.

What Is Human Communication?

1.2 Name and describe the seven primary components of communication.

Broadly speaking, human communication can be defined as a process in which people generate meaning through the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages. In this text, however, we emphasize the influence of individual and societal forces and the roles of culture and context more than other definitions do. Because we believe these concepts are essential to understanding the communication process completely, we developed a definition of human communication that included them. Accordingly, we define human communication as a transactional process in which people generate meaning through the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages in specific contexts, influenced by individual and societal forces and embedded in culture. In the following sections, we will illustrate our definition of human communication and explore the meaning of each of these concepts and their relationships.

A Model of Human Communication: The Synergetic Model

1.3 Explain how the Synergetic Model of Communication differs from previous models.

To help people understand complex processes, scientists and engineers, among others, create visual models to show how all components of a process work together. Scholars of human communication have done the same. They have developed models to reveal how the seven components described work together to create a communication interaction.

The first such model of human communication depicted communication as a linear process that primarily involved the transfer of information from one person to another (Eisenberg et al., 2010; Laswell, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1949). In this model, communication occurred when a sender encoded a message (put ideas into words and symbols) that was sent to a receiver who decoded (interpreted) it. Then the process was believed to reverse: The receiver became the sender, and the sender became the receiver (Laswell, 1948). This model (see Figure 1.1) also included the components of "noise" and "channel." A linear model assumes, for example, that your professor encodes her ideas into a lesson that she communicates to you via a face-to-face or video lecture (the channel) and that you hear her message and decode its meaning unless some noise interferes, such as the video failing to load or a loud noise outside drowning out her words. However, you can see some of the limitations of this model. It assumes that if a message is perfectly crafted its meaning will be clear to the audience, regardless of their own ages, experiences, and interpretations. You can probably think of times where this was not true. Because of these limitations, other, more complex models, such as our Synergetic Model, have been created to show a greater variety of factors that interact with one another to influence the communication process.

The Synergetic Model is a transactional model that, like most previous models, depicts communication as occurring when two or more people create meaning as they respond to each other and their environment. In addition, it is based on a belief in the important roles of individual and societal forces, contexts, and culture in the communication process. We call the model synergetic because synergy describes when two or more elements work together to achieve something either one couldn't have achieved on its own. For example, in the ubiquitous volcano science fair project, "lava" is created by adding vinegar to baking soda. Once the two products interact, something new is created. Similarly, when two people work together on a class project, often the outcome is better than either could have created on his own. Thus, our communication model is synergetic in that the different elements of communication work together to create something different, and greater, than just the sum of its parts. We discuss each of these elements, and to help clarify the concepts, we revisit Charee's interaction with her father once again to illustrate how they function during the communication process.

After carefully planning for the interaction with her father about her desire to be more politically active, Charee engaged in the following conversation with him:

CHAREE: I feel it's my civic responsibility to protest what's been going on in our city's police department. (While talking, Charee notices a quixxical look on her father's face.)

DAD: (frowning, speaking uncertainly) Why you? The police have never done anything to us. Why do you have to put yourself in danger? Couldn't you just write a letter or post some questions to the police department's website?

CHAREE: My friends and I have done this, and the university group I belong to has tried many ways to facilitate change, and it hasn't worked.

DAD: So when and where are you gonna do this?

CHAREE: (looking away, speaking hesitantly) Well, there's an organized rally tonight downtown.

DAD: I still don't understand! Why do you think you have to do this?

CHAREE: (speaking patiently) Do you and Mom remember what it was like when you were in Vietnam and the government didn't respect people's viewpoints? Do you remember what it was like when I was bullied in school and the teacher denied it was happening? I know it's 10 times worse for my Black friends, in school and on the streets. And I think it's patriotic to make sure all Americans are treated fairly. And I know you love this country and feel very patriotic, just as I do.

DAD: (shaking his head, speaking firmly) Well, I wish you didn't have to express your patriotism in this way, but I remember hearing about the problems in the police department here. I just worry about you! I want you to be safe.

CHAREE: (nodding her head, smiling) I know you worry about me, and I kinda like that. I promise 111 keep in touch and be careful.

Communication Ethics

1.4 Formulate your own communication ethic.

A diary study found that college students lied in one out of about every three social interactions, and over the course of a week only 1 percent of students said they told no lies at all (DePaulo, 2011). In a more recent survey of 70,000 undergraduate and graduate students, 95 percent admitted to cheating on a test or homework or committing plagiarism (Danilyuk, 2019). And it isn't only college students who admit to deceiving others. In a recent survey conducted by the National Endowment of Financial Education (2018), 41 percent of respondents confessed to lying to their marital and living partners about money, often with disastrous consequences. "Operation Varsity Blues," in which some wealthy parents paid about $25 million in bribes and misrepresented their children's application materials to get into elite schools, is another example of deception (Reilly, 2020).

Given examples such as these, one may wonder if a communication ethic still exists. We strongly believe that it does. Even if unethical communication is widespread and some people get away with their misbehavior, most people are still held responsible for the messages they create (Anderson & Tompkins, 2015; Fritz, 2019; Lipari, 2009). If you spread gossip about your friends, lie to your employer, or withhold information from your family, justifying your behavior by pointing to the ethical failures of others will not excuse you. Those who know you and are close to you still expect you to meet basic standards for ethical communication.

Why are communication ethics so important? First, they sustain professional success. Yes, unethical people may prosper in the short run, but over time unethical practices catch up with the people who engage in them. To a great extent, your reputation as a person of integrity determines whether others want to hire you, work for you, or conduct business with you. Once that reputation is damaged, it can be difficult if not impossible to regain; consequently, communicating and behaving ethically is just good business.

Communication ethics are vital to personal relationships as well. Maintaining intimate and caring relationships can be difficult, but they become virtually impossible if one communicates unethically by lying, manipulating, or verbally abusing friends and lovers. Intimate relationships are grounded in trust. Without trust, people can't be open and vulnerable with one another, behaviors that are essential to intimacy. When one person abuses that trust by his or her unethical conduct, the other party often is deeply wounded and finds it difficult to ever again be intimate within the relationship. Far too many people have learned the hard way that a lack of ethics destroys relationships.

As a communicator, you will face many ambiguous and difficult choices of both a professional and a personal nature. If you develop your own set of communication ethics, you will be better prepared to face these difficult choices. Therefore, in this section we provide some basic principles of ethical communication for you to consider as you critically review your own ethical standard.

Fundamentally, individuals, groups, and communities develop ethical codes to reflect their beliefs and values. Clearly the guidelines we offer reflect our own communication ethics. We do not expect you to adopt our beliefs wholesale. Rather, we present this information throughout this book so that you can analyze it critically to determine to what extent it reflects your own beliefs and behavior, what evidence supports it, and what other guidelines may be as useful or more useful for you. Thus, we want you to use your critical thinking skills specifically to critique our claims here and to use that analysis to form your own ethical code.

Putting It All Together: Communicating Competently

1.5 Articulate what makes a communicator competent.

The goal of this book is to help you improve your communication skills so that you can become a more successful, or competent, communicator. A competent communicator is one who is able to use communication to achieve his or her (realistic and appropriate) goals. More specifically, communicators are competent when they use their understanding of themselves, others, the context, and communication principles to adapt their communication to achieve their goals (Friedrich, 1994).

Communication competence is composed of two elements: appropriateness, which is defined as following the relevant rules, norms, and expectations for specific relationships and situations; and effectiveness, which involves achieving one's goals successfully. Speakers are competent when they understand the expectations regarding their behavior and are able to behave in a way that fulfills those expectations. For example, a best man offering a wedding toast is expected to be amusing, complimentary, and brief (as well as sober!). Failure to fulfill these expectations not only results in a poor toast, but it often also results in audience members negatively evaluating the speaker. If the toast seriously violates these expectations, the consequences may even include terminated relationships.

Effectiveness refers to the ability to achieve one's goals for an interaction without interfering with other, potentially more important goals. Taking the earlier example, a person giving a toast may have a goal of being humorous. However, if the best man makes jokes that are in poor taste, he might meet his goal of making the audience laugh, but he may fail another, more important goal of remaining friends with the bride and groom.

Generally, speakers have three types of goals that are important during an interaction: content, relationship, and identity. Content goals describe the concrete outcomes you would like to achieve during an interaction -to receive a job offer, earn a high grade on a speech, or to successfully initiate a new relationship. Relationship goals refer to your desire to change or maintain your relationship with another, for example, when you say "I love yo