Casey Regan

DP3

Professor Berkos

Almost all humans interact with other humans on the daily. Verbally, non-verbally - human-to-

human communication is something that almost all of us do in our daily lives. That is why inter-

personal communication is one of the most important and prevalent studies within the com-

munication discipline.

While there are a number of definitions of interpersonal communication (IPC), Dainton

and Zelley define it as “messages between two interdependent persons, with a focus on how

IPC messages are offered to initiate, define, maintain, or further a relationship”. The authors

also stress the importance of the content and quality of these messages and focus on four

specific theories: Politeness Theory, Social Exchange Theory, the Dialectical Perspective, and

Communication Privacy Management Theory.

Politness Theory is a concept developed by Brown and Levinson that explains how “we

manage our own and other’s identities through interaction…through the use of politeness

strategies”. Politeness theory operates off the assumption that all humans have a “face” - a

specific image/identity of themselves they want to portray to others. According to this theory,

we have different “faces” we want to present depending on the situation and who we are with.

to Within this concept, there are two different types of face - positive and negative face. A hu-

man’s “positive face” refers to face they put on when they want to be “liked, appreciated, and

admired by other persons”, while “negative face” refers to one’s desire to act “freely, without

constraints or imposition from others”. We actively perform behaviors to maintain these specif-

ic faces to others. It is also important to note, however, that there are certain “face-threatening

acts” (FTA) that will threaten our ability to maintain these certain faces; such as apologies, criti-

cisms, etc. These behaviors will force us to change how we respond to certain situations to
maintain, or preserve, our face. We utilize preventative (pre-emptive messages that minimize

the possibility of FTA) and corrective facework (post-emptive messages that restore face after

an FTA) to actively avoid discomfort and uncertainty that we face when we encounter an FTA.

However, we may also choose to engage in an FTA - and when we do, there is a certain way in

which we choose how to polite (or not polite) to be. Individuals actively evaluate the difference

between their and the other’s prestige and power, as well as the risk involved.

Social Exchange Theory, developed by Thibaut and Kelley, is a communication theory

that is used to discuss and predict “when and why individuals continue and develop some per-

sonal relationships while ending others”. This theory utilizes the idea that each personal rela-

tionship comes with both costs and rewards, which can in turn predict how we interact within a

relationship. Thibaut and Kelley define rewards as benefits one perceives as enjoyable or can

help you individually (i.e affection, companionship) while costs are the drawbacks that are we

perceive as a result of relationships (i.e less independence, more complicated decision-

making). Therefore, the outcome of the relationship, according to these researchers, can be

summed up in an equation: Rewards-Costs = Outcome. In short, if the rewards outweigh the

costs, there is a general more positive prediction on the relationship, and vice versa. Addition-

ally, there are other specific concepts that help predict the outcome of a relationship, such as

the comparison level (the rewards that an individual expects to get in a specific relationship

based on expectations of other relationships they see) as well as the comparison level of alter-

natives (one’s perceived value of the alternatives of maintaining the relationship).

The Dialectical Perspective is a theory developed by Baxter and Montgomery that ex-

plains the way in which relationships cannot be completely constant; rather, these relationships

are constantly developing and changing due to “tensions and contradictions” (Dainton and Zel-

ley). According to the dialectical perspective, there are four specific “assumptions” that guide a

dialectical approach to relationship maintenance - praxis, change, contradictions, and totality.

The concept of “praxis” refers to the way that a relationship is both non-linear and non-repeti-

tive in the sense that those in relationships are constantly acting and reacting to each other;
therefore, certain feelings can being less or more intense over time. The dialectical perspective

also assumes that relationships are “sustained, not maintained” (Montgomery); in essence, the

only “guarantee in a relationship is that it will change” over time (Dainton and Zelley). Contra-

dictions is the concept that tensions are bound to happen in relationships because individuals

have needs that oppose each other; therefore, it is important for individuals to overcome these

tensions (contradictions) by being able to sustain their relationship by using proper communi-

cation methods. Finally, totality is the idea that although relationships all have these contradic-

tions, they are also extremely interdependent; without this interdependence, the relationship

“cannot exist”. Based on these assumptions, we are constantly trying to “satisfy dialectical

tensions”. These tensions, called internal (autonomy-connection, openness-closedness, pre-

dictablility-novelty) and external dialectics (inclusion-seclusion, revelation-concealment, con-

ventionality-uniqueness), are the interdependent but opposing tensions we feel when in rela-

tionships.

The final theory that helps explain interpersonal communication is the Communication

Privacy Management (CPM) Theory. Developed by Petronio, this theory concerns the way in

which people choose to reveal/conceal private information and the decision-making behind it.

According to this theory, there are six principles of CPM. The first principle revolves around the

public-private dialectical tension, which is the competing demand between revealing too much

information (public) versus keeping that information private, and navigating how revealing cer-

tain amounts of information will help/not help. The second principal is the possession of private

information, which is the concept that private information is “something you own, and because

you own it, you have the right to control it” (Dainton and Zelley). Therefore, there are certain

privacy rules (the third principle) that help us determine whether we disclose this private infor-

mation or keep it to ourselves. These rules are based upon multiple types of criteria, including

cultural, gender, and contextual criteria, which all differ based on the individual. The fourth

principle, boundaries, concerns the personal and collective metaphorical boundaries that exist

when we have private information. Therefore, the fifth principal of CPM, boundary coordination,
concerns exactly how we maintain these boundaries. This concept includes how well we are

linked with others who also own the private information, the “rights and responsibilities” of the

owners of the information, and how easily the information can be accessed. Finally, the sixth

principle, boundary turbulence, revolves around the concept that the rules of privacy manage-

ment may not always be clear, depending on the differing privacy rules of those who are inter-

acting.

Application: Politeness Theory

I have different faces I utilize to push forth my best self-image that I change depending on the

situation or environment I am currently in. While I am in class and learning at my university, I

push forth the image to my professors and peers that I am smart, intelligent, and knowledgable

about the material being discussed in class. Therefore, I take notes, ask questions, and go to

my professor’s office hours. However, when I am with my friends outside of a school setting,

such as spending time with a friend at her townhouse, I might want to push forth different parts

of my identity; such as portraying myself as more social, talkative, and happy; therefore,

putting on a different face.

Questions:

1) Isn’t the Social Exchange Theory inherently flawed in that it is operates off the assumption

that we always have the capacity to weigh the costs vs. benefits of a relationship?

2) What types of dialectical tensions have you individually experienced within relationships?

Have they different depending on the type of relationship (romantic, friendly, work)?