WEEK 2 – EFFECTIVE INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Listening is Hard
Judy Brownell: “A message means whatever the receiver thinks it does”.
Why is it hard to listen?
- Preoccupation
o Thinking about ourselves o “Drift off”
- Prejudgement
o Think we know what they are going to say or “really mean”
o Stops listening to actual words - Reactivity
o Listen for emotional content for the way people are saying things o React to emotion rather than message
- Lack of motivation
o Aren’t motivated to listen
How not to listen
Non-listening behaviours - Pseudo listening
o Pretend to listen, but not actually o Not paying attention
- Monopolising
o Focus conversations on ourselves rather than speaker
o Tricks and verbal gymnastics to turn conversation back to ourselves - Selective listening
o Only attend to a fraction of conversation
o Focus on interesting parts or what we want to hear - Defensive listening
o Listen for attacks, criticism
o Looking to take offense even when nothing to be offended by o Usually when conversing with someone
- Ambushing
o Listen for points to attack “weak spots”
o Looking to criticise - Literal listening
o Listen to all words but no emotional tone o Misinterpretation of message
Projection Biases
People make assumptions how others think and feel and think other’s thoughts and feeling mirror ours
The Norm of Reciprocity
Alvin Ward Goulder – Men have been insisting on the importance of reciprocity for a long time
- Expect others to as well - Survival value
- Norm (social norms) ensures a cycle of helping and mutual care o Descriptive norms: what people do
o Injective norms: what people ought to do
Karl Marx – Reciprocity if universal, and aids functioning and cooperation among human
Linda D. Molm Types of Reciprocity - Spontaneous
o Unspoken
o Increases trust, affection & respect
- Negotiated: You do this for me, I will do this for you
Norm of Reciprocity in Conflict Youngs (1986)
- Participants in booths and communicated with another participant (confederate who was actually youngs)
- Asked to work together to benefit one or either of them - Earn points to get real money at the end – highly motivated
- If participants made “mean” decision, they would gain points and other would lose points - Possible to take negative actions such as threat or punishment
- Youngs varied his responses
o Frequently vs infrequently threatened o Small vs large threat
o Small vs large punishment - Behaviour was measured
Paleari, Regalia & Fincham (2010) - 120 Heterosexual couples
- Asked how they dealt with conflict in relationships - Measured:
o Aggressive behaviour o Avoidant behaviour o Effect conflict resolution o Relationship quality - Results:
o Partner more likely to report same type of aggression
o More they used avoidance and attacking the less effective they were at argumentation and less effective and more unhappy