Effective Communication

Introduction:

The nature of communication in social context consists of a complex array of interpersonal skills that require extensive research and analysis to be decoded. The preceding transcript will be used as an example of social communication and will be scrutinised to identify two types of effective and ineffective interpersonal skill displayed by myself.

Effective Communication

During the interaction there are clear emotional reactions indicating a conflictual environment because of a divergence in opinions. Although it was a rather tardive initiative, I have made use of my reflecting skills when I paraphrased the sender’s emotion (Z3). Weger, Castle and Emmet (2010) advance the idea that mirroring the speaker’s statement through paraphrasing shows that the listener clearly understands what the speaker is expressing, thus establishing the speaker’s disclosure as valid and important. As such paraphrasing is a reflecting skill that promotes effective communication and, in this occasion, is used empathetically to reflect the speaker’s emotion. In fact, a research conducted by Seehausen, Kazzer, Bajbouj and Prehn (2012) demonstrated that empathy is an emotional regulator in social conflict and paraphrasing, as the conductor of empathy, is responsible for inducing higher autonomic arousal along with a decrease in negative feelings from the recipient. The primary objective when paraphrasing the receiver was to express my understanding of her feelings, in my own words, in order to show consideration to her emotions and subsequently generate a positive effect on these emotions. As a result, the receivers’ answer (M3) reveals a focused approach to the issue along with a controlled emotional reaction conveyed by her calm tone and the inquisitive nature of her question. This shift in behaviour corroborates with the findings of the research by Seehausen et al. (2012) where empathetic paraphrasing generates high autonomic arousal and subsequently directs the focus of the recipient on processing the negative emotion, thereby potentially helping with resolving these emotions.

Another interpersonal skill that led to effective communication is when I used assertiveness to clarify my goals, rights and needs (Z4). As the interaction progresses, a climate of negotiation emerges where assertion has a distinctive purpose. According to Goldwasser (2006), assertiveness in negotiation is considered an effective communication skill where people communicate openly to meet their need and find solution to differences. Moreover, Pipas and Jaradat (2010) defined assertiveness as the ability to communicate feelings and rights while at the same time respecting the feelings and rights of the receivers. In this interaction, while expressing my feelings via self-disclosure I acknowledge the necessity to entrust the receiver with this sensitive information, therefor respecting the receiver by admitting what my true motivations are. In fact, Goldwasser (2006) suggest that self-disclosure and assertive behaviour are linked because the assertive person appreciates the necessity to confide information to others. Finally, a research conducted by Warren and Gilner (1978) demonstrated that assertive behaviour, when linked to self-disclosure, encourages communication and verbalisation of appreciation from others; the receiver’s answer (M4) is an example of these findings. Indeed, her positive words are a clear indication of her consideration towards my disclosure and her subsequent empathic silence demonstrate that she is showing good following skills. In conclusion, communicating my feelings and goals via self-disclosure was the adequate way to be assertive.

Ineffective Communication

During this interaction I have expressed incongruent verbal and nonverbal messages (Z2). My voice and gesture are clearly incongruent with the words expressed, hence failing to communicate effectively my original thoughts. As suggested by Cartmill and Goldin-Meadow (2016), the semantic relationship between gesture and speech is defined by the extent to which gesture communicates messages absent in speech; when incongruence occur, contradicting messages arise. In addition, Cartmill and Goldin-Meadow (2016), explain that vocal characteristic are indicators of the speaker’s emotional state and Shaver, Shwartz, Kirson and O’connor (1987) advance that an angry person displays nonverbal signs through loud and fierce voice along with physical clues designed to intimidate. Therefore, my high voice and frantic hand gesture are indicators of my emotional state of anger, yet the connotation of my apologetic words is subjectively divergent, thus communicating two contradicting messages. As a result, the listener appears confused and upset (M2). Indeed, as explained by Guerrero & Floyd (2006), a true emotional state is more accurately reflected through nonverbal messages rather than verbal messages; this is explained by the fact that the listener focuses more on the nonverbal rather than on the verbal messages and as Mehrabian (1972) explicitly established through his research, when inconsistency exist between the two, nonverbal messages are the dominant source of interpretation for the receiver, hence leaving minimal significance to the verbal message.

Finally, I have shown ineffective communication skills when I initiated the conversation with a simple lead question followed by a question tag (Z1). According to Hargie (2017), simple lead questions are designed to promote a response the questioner awaits, thus, intentionally ignoring the respondent thoughts and emotions. In my statement I omit to take in consideration the receiver potential opinion, thoughts or feelings hence failing to communicate effectively. In addition, a question tag at the end of my statement (‘… don’t you?’) appeared to have had a negative impact on the development of the discussion. As Bradac and Mulac (1994) suggests, statements followed by a tag question are usually powerless and inefficient, but more importantly fail to express the communicator’s intention. As a result, the receiver’s answer (M2) is distinctively negative where the second part is solely focused on reprimanding my goals. Clearly, my primary intentions were to express the idea of a future time of enjoyment but the answer received is reflecting disapprobation and anger. In fact, a research conducted by Hosman and Siltanen (2011), indicates that statements followed by a tag questions are the source of adverse speaker-related thoughts. Finally, although further research on the topic have demonstrated conflictual results (Areni & Sparks, 2005; Blankenship & Craig, 2007; Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005; Hosman & Siltanen, 2011), the common trend demonstrated that the

...