Casey Regan

DP2

It is important to recognize that communication is not exclusively the study of the messages

we send, but also how society shapes our perspectives that drive us to send these messages.

Concepts like the construction of gender, stereotypes, one’s “emotional intelligence” and

nature/nurture all play a huge role in how we communicate. These concepts, which are results

of social expectations and our own individual, specific traits, effect the way we communicate

with others.

It is hard to deem whether one’s communication habits come more from nurture or

more from nature due to the vast viewpoints on the subject. Does our perception of social

expectations mold the messages we want to send? Or are we born with specific habits?

Dainton and Zelley provide the example of whether someone is born a liar or if they were raised

in a way that “fostered a tendency to engage in deceptive practices”. Different communication

scholars believe different things depending on their own views. For example, some scholars

who believe in an emphasis on nature believe that evolutionary mechanisms and genetics are a

large factor in our communication methods. According to McCroskey, who created the

communibiological approach, our different traits and temperaments are mostly based in our

neurobiology, rather than exclusively in our social environment. On the other hand, the nurture

side of the debate states that our social environment plays a larger role in our social behaviors.

For example, some scholars state that it is essential to study the nurture side of the debate

because our past, lived experiences have influenced us significantly because they have

constructed and shaped our standpoints. Standpoint theory, in short, is the idea that humans

all have positions/views that we have shaped based on our experiences, and that we generally

flock to others that share these same viewpoints. Wood also states that the difference in
people’s experiences “stem from imbalance in social, economic, and symbolic power”. Wood

uses the way boys and girls are raised and socialized differently as an example.

The social role theory, which discusses sex and gender, utilizes the social approach to

communication to explain why women are socialized differently (and why that is a problem).

According to the social role theory, sex and gender are different entities; sex being genetically

determined by your chromosomes and gender being a more fluid concept and “the consensual

beliefs about the attributes of women and men” (Eagly & Karau). Due to the attributes society

assigns each sex, we often link gender and sex to be the same when in fact, they are not.

These attributes lead to stereotypes; for example, girls being conditioned to like the color pink

and boys the color blue from a young age. According to Dainton and Zelley, there are two main

methods that people use to stereotype by gender communal qualities and agentic qualities.

Communal qualities are known to be behaviors that are typically linked with women - i.e

sensitivity, sympathetic, and nurturance, while agentic qualities are ones that are typically

associated with men - assertiveness, confidence, forcefulness. Our habit of assigning

communal and agentic qualities leads to the expectation of fitting with the social roles of your

perceived gender.

Despite research that states we are more similar to the opposite sex then we are

different, and that our sex does not play as big of a role in our inherent communication styles,

these perceived gender stereotypes often affect all aspects of our life. According to role

congruity theory, women are more likely to experience prejudice when acting in leadership

positions because of the communal qualities society links to them and their perceived lack of

agentic qualities. These prejudices, called descriptive prejudice and prescriptive prejudice, lead

to the reduction in likelihood that women will emerge as leaders in workplace settings due to

the “double bind”.

Another theory that revolves around the way in which our individual traits and socially

condition qualities interact is the emotional intelligence theory. According to Daniel Goleman,

emotional intelligence is defined as the way in which a person is able to monitor “their own and
other’s emotions”. EI is not a trait (individual quality), but rather a social quality that develops as

with one’s “age and experience” (Dainton and Kelley). According to Salovey and Mayer, there

are four branches to emotional intelligence: perceiving emotions, using emotions to assist

thinking, understanding and analyzing emotions’ and regulation of emotions.The higher one’s

emotional intelligence, Salovey and Mayer argue, the more likely they are able to read other’s

emotions and use emotion to “make decisions and achieve goals”. Dainton and Kelley also cite

a number of different researchers who have found a correlation between one’s emotional

intelligence and one’s performance in a business-setting. There are two specific leadership

styles that demonstrate this; transactional leadership (leading by seeking a solid and consistent

foundation with employees) and transformational leadership (leading by encouraging and

inspiring “exceptional” performance.

When working in an organization, it is important to also be aware of the different ways

that people understand and think about messages differently. Message design logic, a theory

created by O’Keefe, is the concept that one’s general view about the “function of

communication” can affect their messages. Therefore, O’Keefe states, there are three different

design logics wherein people operate to understand their messages, and people tend to have

different preferences for each design logic.

Those who use expressive design logic believe that the goal of communication is to

“convey the sender’s thoughts and feelings” and value self expression; they do not have a filter

and value frankness and openness. One who uses conventional logic, on the other hand,

believes that communication is something where rules have to be followed; they are concerned

with making sure they are saying the right thing and view societal guidelines as rules that

should be followed. Finally, those who use the rhetorical message design logic believe that

communication is a tool to achieve your goals by predicting other’s standpoints by essentially

placing themselves in the other’s shoes. This way, they are able to solve problems quicker and

prevent problems.

 The final thing Dainton and Zelley discuss in the interactional perspective. The

interactional perspective states that there are five specific concepts relating to communication;

1) Communication does not need to be intentional, and one is always communicating.

2) Communication has both content and relationship levels

3) Communicators punctuate sequences of behavior

4) Communication utilizes digital and analogical codes

5) Communication can be symmetrical or complementary

Dainton and Zelley also state that these concepts can provide reasoning for conflict between

generations. Because generations were brought up in different times, they were therefore

taught different social qualities. Dainton and Zelley use the way Millennials value work0-life

balance more, and that generations before them are more likely to strictly follow rules. The

interactional perspective and it’s five concepts can help these generations intermingle and

better understand each other. 


Application:

The Double Bind

A woman is up against a male for a promotion in her workplace. When discussing her

leadership skills, her bosses may discuss that, because she is a woman, she is less more

sensitive, therefore making her seem like a less effective leader (descriptive prejudice).

However, they also state that she seems too assertive, and women are not supposed to be as

assertive. This results in a double bind for the woman in question, because if she conforms to

the communal stereotype, she is seen as too sensitive, but if she conforms to the agentic

stereotype of being assertive (the opposite of sensitive) she is still seen as not being fit for

leadership. She does not win either way.

Questions

1) Women: Have you ever been stuck in “the double bind” in a workplace situation? Were you

conscious of it?

2) Do you think it’s possible to completely eradicate the roles stated in the social role theory?

If so, how?