Composition and Communication | CIS 110 Kathleen S. Verderber |Rudolph F. Verderber | Deanna D. Sellnow | Robert Hershberger | Michael Fast | Guadalupe Lopez-Cox | Susan Navey-Davis | Lisa Nalbone &. CENGAGE ‘ ; ars apa oren = Meso = Singapore Son «Unite Kingdom + United statesCENGAGE Learning ‘Composition and Communication|: CIS 110 Senior Manager, Sent Engagemont Linde destefana nay Meeter Manoger, Stulent Engagement hie Dit Marking Manager: Rachael Kloos Manage, Production Fao im Fry Manger, Intallecual Property Projet Manager ian Mate ‘Senior Manager, Producton and Manufacturing Donna M. Brown Managor, Production: Terr Day Printed in the Unted States of America Communit, ourtoonth Elton Kathleen 8. Vordarbor[Rudoiph F Verdtber | Deanna D, Snow £© 2014, 2010, 2008 Congage Learning. Al rights reserved ck Guide to Engh Grammer ‘Robert Hershberger | Michaal Fas | Guadalupe L6pex-Cox | Susan Navoy-Davi © 2001 Cengage Learning, Al git reserved EEnvichmont nodule: Wht n he Digital ors (Chapter prepared by David May. (©2018 Cengage Learning. Al hts reserved AL RIGHTS RESERVED. Nop he work covered the copyright ten ‘maybe reproduced ransted,stoedorwsedin ary fon ory ny means ‘phic electronic or mechanical including ot ited o photocopying. ‘ending seanning. itzng taping, We dbo, nfmation ntwrks, cor information storage aed etreal ystems, except spermited Under Sectlon 107 of 108 ofthe 176 United States Copy ct, witout the por ren pein ofthe publisher or produc inormation ad technology assistané,contact us at ‘Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, -800256-5706 For pamslon ose mater fan this texto prod submitall rsqicss one at eargage.com/peemissons Further petmsion questions ean be eraed to petnisslomecuest@cengage.com ‘This book contains slat woes rom esting Cengage Learning resources and ws poducedly Congge Learing Custom Sltions for celle use. As such, ‘hse adopting ander eentbuting to ths worker responsible for etal content aecracy, continu and completeness. Compilation © 2014 Cengage Learning ISBT: G78-1-205-02970-8 IsoN10: 4-205-020798 WEN: 01-100-101 Congege Learning {181 Neto Boulevard Mason, Ohdo 46040 usa, Cengage tearing leading prover of stoned learn souls th fe ection around be, nud Singrpore the Unite Kingdon, Austali Mexi, ral 2nd opan Leste your cal ke a Internationa cengage-com/regon. ‘Cengage earring procs are represented Canal by Nelson Education| For yourfeiong lating slations, vi wwucengege.com/custom. Visit our corporate websio a wan congageca.How relationships end depands on ‘he terpeeara campotnze of bth ‘0p. Do you know people who are amlablydvrcad? How do they der ‘wom poope with boston? gravo-drossing attempts to explain why the relationship failed rolationship transforma: Hon the process of changing @ ‘lationship trom one level of Intimacy to another dialectic «@ fonsion between conflicting forces rolational dlatectioe ‘he competing psychological tensions in a relationship Unit 2. | Interpersonal Communication and Relationships lifestyles and interests, rejection, outside interference, absence of rewards, and boredom (Cupach and Metts, 1986), Research calls these attempts to explain why the relationship failed grave-dressing (Duck, 1982). ‘Unfortunately, partners sometimes look for reasons to blame each other rather than trying to find equitable ways of bringing the relationship to an acceptable con- clusion. They do so by using strategies of manipulation, E withdrawal, and avoidance (Baxter, 1982). Though mis- £ guided and inappropriate, manipulation involves being indirect and failing to take any responsibility for ending £ the relationship. Manipulators may purposely sabotage the relationship in hopes that the other person will break it off. Withdrawal and avoidance, also less than competent ways to terminate a relationship, are passive approaches, which lead to the slow and often painful death of the relationship. ‘The most competent way to end a relationship is to be direct, open, and honest. Clearly state your wish to end the relationship while being respectful of the other person and sensitive to the resulting emotions. If two people have had a satisfying and close relationship, they owe it to themselves and to each other to be forthright and fair about communicating during the terminating, stage of the relationship. ‘Even when partners agree that their relationship in its current form is over, they may continue to interact and influence each other through a differ- ent type of relationship. This is called relationship transformation. Roman- tic relationships may transform into friendships, best friends may become casual friends, and even marriages may continue on friendly terms or as a type of business relationship where child-rearing practices and expenses are coordinated (Parks, 2006). After Whitney and Paige géaduate, their friendship may be transformed into that of acquaintances who enjoy seeing each other at reunions, tionships Dialectics in Interpersonal Re Have you ever felt ambivalent about a relationship? On the one hand, you re- ally wanted to become close to someone but at the same time you wanted your “space.” Or have you met someone who seemed a bit too nosy but you really wanted to get to know the person? Have you ever enjoyed the stability of a long-term relationship, but at the same time longed for the same excitement as, when you first met? If so, you were experiencing what scholars call a relational dialectic. A dialectic is a tension between conflicting forces. Relational dialec- ties are the competing psychological tensions that exist in any relationship. At any one time, one or both people may be aware of these tensions. Let's take a look at some specific relational dialectics and then discuss some ways to man- age these inevitable tensions in our relationships. Relational Dialectics ‘Three dialectics common to most relationships are the tugs between autono- my and connection, openness and closedness, and novelty and predictability (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Baxter & West, 2003). How these tensions are dealt with can ali the stage and life cycle of a relationship.‘Autonomy/Connection Autonomy is the desire to do things independent of your partner, Connection is the desire to link your actions and decisions with your partner. Joel and Shelly have been dating for about a year. At this point in their relationship, Shelly wants to spend most of her free time with Joel and enjoys talking with him before acting or making decisions, but Joel hhas begun to feel hemmed in, For example, he wants to be able to play basket- pall with the guys without having to clear it first with Shelly. At the same time, however, he doesn’t want to hurt Shelly’s feelings or ruin the closeness of their relationship, Shelly is happy with their relationship and may not recognize ‘any tension between autonomy and connection. On the other hand, Joel is feel ing the tension between wanting to be more autonomous without jeopardizing his connection to Shelly. If Joel begins to act autonomously, he may relieve his own tension but at the same time create tension in the relationship. Openness/Closedness Openness is the desire to share intimate ideas and feelings with your partner. Closedness is the desire to maintain privacy. Let's say that Joel discloses quite a bit to Shelly. He believes it is important to divulge his feelings to Shelly, and he expects her to do the same. In other words, the open quadrant of Joel's Johari window in his relationship with Shelly is quite large. Shelly, however, is a more private person. She does disclose to Joel, but not as much as he would like. The secret pane of her Johari window is larger than Joel would like it to be. The fact that Shelly and Joel differ in their preferred levels of self-disclosure is one source of ten- sion in their relationship. But Joel does not want complete openness all the time. He realizes it is sometimes appropriate to refrain from self-disclosure. So he seeks both openness and closedness in this relationship. Likewise, Shelly, although wanting more closedness than Joe! does, still wants some openness. $0, like Joel, she wants both forces to occur simultaneously in this relationship. Novelty/Predictability Novelty is the desire for originality, freshness, and uniqueness in your own or your partner's behavior or in the relation- ship. Predictability is the desire for consistency, reliability, and dependability. People experience tension between their desires for novelty and predictability. Because Shelly and Joel have been dating for a year, much of the uncertainty is gone from their relationship. But they do not want to eliminate uncertainty altogether. With no uncertainty at all, a relationship becomes so predictable and so routine that itis boring. Although Shelly and Joel know each other well, can predict much about each other, and have quite a few routines in their rela~ tionship, they also want to be suxprised and have new experiences with each other, Shelly and Joel may differ in their needs for novelty and predictability. Shelly may yearn for Joel to surprise her with a mystery date, or she may shock Joel by spontaneously breaking into their favorite song in the middle of the mall. At this point in their relationship, Joel may be comfortable operating by the routines they have established and may be embarrassed and shocked by Shelly's song. This is another tension between the two that must be managed in their relationship. But they must also cope with the fact that they each need some amount of both novelty and predictability in the relationship. ‘Although our example of Shelly and Joel is an intimate relationship, it is important to remember that dialectical tensions exist in all relationships—and they are always in flux. Sometimes these dialectical tensions are active and in the foreground; at other times they are in the background, Nevertheless, when we experience thei, they influence the walure of our relationship (Wood, 2000), autonomy the dosire todo things inde- pondont of one's partner the desire to do things and ‘make decisions with one's partnor ppenness, the desire to share intimate Jdoae and feelings with one's ‘partner closeness the dosire to maintain one's privacy to a rolationship novelty originality, freshness, and uniqueness in the partner's behaviors or in tho relationship predictability consistency reliably, and dependability Ina relationship—————— #) Unit 2 | interpersonal Communication and Relationships temporal selection the strategy of choosing ono dlalactcal tension and ignor- Ing its opposite for a whilo topical segmentation | trast of crocs | tantra | Fao etn tron ara | Shortest opposte | WHAT WOULD YOU DO? A Question of Ethics Jeff and Magda, seniors at a small rural college, had bean dating each other since they were freshmen. Jeff loved Magda, and he planned to propose to her after they graduated in the spring. ‘At the same time, though, he reluctantly recog- nized that thelr relationship had fallen into a bit of a tut over the previous six months, and he missed the excitement and romance of thelr first ‘year together. Although he was troubled by these conflicting feelings, Jeff was unsure what to do about them, (One day while he was surfing MySpace.com, Jeff decided, on a whim, to create a fake user pro- file for the person he wanted to be in his fanta- sles. He spent quite a bit of time researching and designing the profile of his imaginary persona, a rap singer/flamenco guitarist/snowboarder/ung fu expert who went by the user name “Moon- Dog.” Jeff inserted photes of an obscure young Romanian actor he found online Into Moon Dogi8's user profile. He posted lyrics to rap songs, he wrote on MoonDogi3's page and joined on- jg ussr groupe for those Interested in flamenco | You may be wondering how you tionships. How do people satisfy | researchers (Baxter & Montgomery, \ manage dialectical tensions in relation temporal selection, topical segmentation, neutralization, and reframing, "Temporal selection is the strategy of choosing one desire and ignoring the haps you and a friend realize that you have spent 20 you make a conscious decision to over the next few months, you will pedule lots of activities however, you may feel ime together, and so you may find yourself d forth like this is one way to temporarily other for the time being. Per too much time apart lately (autonomy), pursue connection. That is, you agree that make a point of spending more time together. You sch together so that you can be more connected. Over time, that you are spending too much th cancelling dates. Seesawing back an manage a relational dialectic. Topical segmentation is | which to satisfy one desire an | your mom may practice openne certain topics stich as school, work, and polities, Managing Dialectical Tensions guitar, snowboarding, and kung fu. In very title time, MoonDogi3 had made a number of on- Tine friends, many of whom were admiring young women. MoonDog’3 loved to fit with these gis. Joff told Magda nothing about MoonDogtS, ‘even when the time he spent ontine managing the fictitious life of his alter ego began to interfere in his relationship with her. He justified this decision with the belief that MoonDog was an imaginary figure who existed only in cyberspace. As long as fantasy didn't cross into realty, there was no rea ‘on Jeff had to feel guity about anything Moon Dog! said ontine, 4. How is Jeff acting ethically or unethicelly in this situation? 2. Like Jeff, most people act differently in oyber- ‘space than they do in the real world. Are the ethics of cyberspace any different from those of the real world? What about fantasy —are the ethics of our private desires different from the real world? Are we ethically obliged to disclose our fantasies to our loved ones? can cope with dialectical tensions in rela- opposite needs at the same time? Several 1996; Wood, 2000) have studied how people ships. Four strategies for doing so include the strategy of choosing certain topics with .d other topics for the opposite desire. You and ss by sharing your opinions and feeling about but maintain your privacycnapter? | interpersonal Relatlonships concerning your sex lives. This segmentation satisfies both your needs for bal ance in the openness/closedness dialectic. “Neutralization is the strategy of compromising between the desires of one person and the desires of the other. Neutralization partially mects the needs of both people but does not fully meet the needs of either. Acouple might purse ven ccate level of novelty and spontaneity in thei lives, which satisies both of them, The amount of novelty in the relationship may be less than what one Per Son would ideally want and moze than what the other would normally desire, ut they have reached a middle point comfortable to both. ‘Reframing is the strategy of changing your perception about the level of tension, Reframing involves looking at your desires differently so that they no onger seem quite so contradictory. Maybe you are fense because you perceive that you are more open andl your partner is more closed. So, you think about how much you disclose to him and how litle he discloses to you. You might even discuss this issue with your partner. Perhaps during the conversation you begin to realize the times that you have held back (closedness), as well as he instances when he was open. After the conversation, you no Ionger see a5 strong a contradiction. You see yourselves as more similar than different on this dialectic. You have reframed your perception of the tension. ‘In most cases when you aze developing, maintaining, or trying fo repair a deteriorating relationship, it helps to openly tall with your partner about the tensions you are feeling and come to an agreement about how you will man age the dialectic going forward. Through self-disclosure and Feedback, you andl your partner may be able to negotiate a new balance that satisfies both of {you At times, however, partners will be unable to esolve the tension® When this happens, one ot both of you will probably experience dissatisfaction and the relationship may deteriorate or end. Summary Interpersonal communication s the process through which relationships move through their unique life cycles. Healthy interpersonal relationships are muti: ally satisfying and beneficial to both parties. We engage in three types of rela- tionships. Acquaintances are people we know by name andl talk with, but with, iiNom pur interactions are limited in quality and quantity. Friends are those people with whom we have voluntarily negotiated. more personal relations. Petimates are those with whom we share a high degree of commitment, ust interdependence, disclosure, and enjoyment. Relationships are influenced by ae rnuication disclosure and feedback processes. These include both self disclosure and other-disclosure about a breadth and depth of topics. ‘Relationship life cycles may occur in a series of stages that include coming together in beginning and developing relationships, relational maintenarc® Mh developed relationships, and perhaps coming apart by declining or dissolving, {in ending relationships. Sometimes terminated relationships are transformed into something new as people interact in different ways. ‘Partners must negotiate inevitable dialectical tensions in interpersonal relationships. These tensions focus on autonomy /connectedness, ‘openness/ Uosedness: and novelty /predictability. We can manage them through tempo- rel selection, topical segmentation, neutralization, and reframing, Competent communicators talk openly, honestly, and respectfully with their partners if any relationship type, regarding disclosui sntial information, during Ss in wave that manage dialectical tensions appropriately. neutralization tne strategy of compromising between the desires of the 160 partners reframing the strategy of changing one’s perspective about the fovel of tension