Interpersonal and impersonal communication relationship

Interpersonal communication - Wikipedia

interpersonal and impersonal communication relationship

Definition of impersonal communication: A type of communication or being a doctor often involves more personal communication or an in-depth relationship. These developments in communication technology influence interpersonal First, they introduce media choice as a salient question in interpersonal relationships. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and. What elements make communication interpersonal or impersonal? Interpersonal Communication People communicate in an “I_Thou” relationship.

Relationship context This context assumes that there are mutual expectations between individuals who are members of a group. Episode context This context simply refers to a specific event in which the communicative act is taking place.

Archetype context This context is essentially one's image of what his or her belief consists of regarding general truths within communicative exchanges. Furthermore, Pearce and Cronen believe that these specific contexts exist in a hierarchical fashion. This theory assumes that the bottom level of this hierarchy consists of the communicative act. Next, the hierarchy exists within the relationship context, then the episode context, followed by the self-concept context, and finally the archetype context.

Social penetration theory[ edit ] Main article: Social penetration theory Developed by Irwin Altman and Dallas Taylor, the social penetration theory was made to provide conceptual framework that describes the development in interpersonal relationships.

Interpersonal Communication

This theory refers to the reciprocity of behaviors between two people who are in the process of developing a relationship. The behaviors vary based on the different levels of intimacy that a relationship encounters. This analogy suggests that like an onion, personalities have "layers" that start from the outside what the public sees all the way to the core one's private self.

Often, when a relationship begins to develop, it is customary for the individuals within the relationship to undergo a process of self-disclosure. These stages include the orientation, exploratory affective exchange, affective exchange, and stable exchange. Exploratory affective stage Next, individuals become somewhat more friendly and relaxed with their communication styles. Affective exchange In the third stage, there is a high amount of open communication between individuals and typically these relationships consist of close friends or even romantic or platonic partners.

Stable stage The final stage, simply consists of continued expressions of open and personal types of interaction. Example- Jenny just met Justin because they were sitting at the same table at a wedding. Within minutes of meeting one another, Justin engages in small talk with Jenny. Jenny decides to tell Justin all about her terrible ex-boyfriend and all of the misery he put her through.

This is the kind of information you wait to share until stages three or four, not stage one.

What is the difference between interpersonal communication and impersonal communication

Due to the fact that Jenny told Justin much more than he wanted to know, he probably views her in a negative aspect and thinks she is crazy, which will most likely prevent any future relationship from happening. Altman and Taylor believed the social exchange theory principles could accurately predict whether or not people will risk self-disclosure. The principles included, relational outcome, relational stability, and relational satisfaction.

This theory assumes that the possible outcome is the stance that which the decision making process of how much information an individual chooses to self disclose is rooted by weighing out the costs and rewards that an individual may acquire when choosing to share personal information. Due to ethical egoism, individuals try to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain; acting from the motive of self-interest.

An example of the social penetration theory can be seen when one thinks of a hypothetical situation such as meeting someone for the first time. The depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy a relationship has accomplished.

When two individuals meet for the first time, it is the cultural expectation that only impersonal information will be exchanged. This could include information such as names, occupations, age of the conversation participants, as well as various other impersonal information. However, if both members participating in the dialogic exchange decide that they would like to continue or further the relationship, with the continuation of message exchanges, the more personal the information exchanged will become.

Altman and Taylor defined these as the depth and breadth of self-disclosure. According to Griffin, the definition of depth is "the degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individuals life" and the definition of breadth is "the range of areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place.

Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information 2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development 3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached 4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. Online communication seems to follow a different set of rules. Rather than slowly disclosing personal thoughts, emotions, and feelings to others, anonymous individuals online are able to disclose personal information immediately and without the consequence of having their identity revealed.

Ledbetter notes that Facebook users self-disclose by posting personal information, pictures, hobbies, and messages. The study finds that the user's level of self-disclosure is directly related to the level of interdependence on others. This may result in negative psychological and relational outcomes as studies show that people are more likely to disclose more personal information than they would in face to face communication, primarily due to the heightened level of control within the context of the online communication medium.

In other words, those with poor social skills may prefer the medium of Facebook to show others who they are because they have more control. The reason that self disclosure is labeled as risky, is because, individuals often undergo a sense of uncertainty and susceptibility in revealing personal information that has the possibility of being judged in a negative way by the receiver. Hence, the reason that face-to-face communication must evolve in stages when an initial relationship develops.

Their theory became the foundation from which scholars in the field of communication approached the study of relationships. Ubiquitous communication[ edit ] The Palo Alto Group maintains that a person's presence alone results in them, consciously or not, expressing things about themselves and their relationships with others i.

This ubiquitous interaction leads to the establishment of "expectations" and "patterns" which are used to determine and explain relationship types. Expectations[ edit ] Individuals enter communication with others having established expectations for their own behavior as well as the behavior of those they are communicating with.

These expectations are either reinforced during the interaction, or new expectations are established which will be used in future interactions.

These new expectations are created by new patterns of interaction, established expectations are a result of established patterns of interaction. Patterns of interaction[ edit ] Established patterns of interaction are created when a trend occurs regarding how two people interact with each other. There are two patterns of particular importance to the theory which form two kinds of relationships.

Symmetrical relationships[ edit ] These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two people responding to one and other in the same way. This is a common pattern of interaction within power struggles. Complementary relationships[ edit ] These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two people responding to one and other in opposing ways.

An example of such a relationship would be when one person is argumentative while the other is quiet. Relational control[ edit ] Relational control refers to who, within a relationship, is in control of it. The pattern of behavior between partners over time, not any individual's behavior, defines the control within a relationship.

There are three kinds of responses: One-down responses are submissive to, or accepting of, another's assertions. One-up responses are in opposition to, or counter, another's assertions. One-across responses are neutral in nature. When complementary exchanges are frequently occurring within a relationship, and the parties at each end of the exchange tend to remain uniform, it is a good indication of a complementary relationship existing.

Symmetrical exchanges[ edit ] Symmetrical exchanges occur when one partner's assertion is countered with a reflective response.

interpersonal and impersonal communication relationship

So, when a one-up assertion is met with a one-up response, or when a one-down assertions is met with a one-down response, a symmetrical exchange occurs. When symmetrical exchanges are frequently occurring within a relationship, it is a good indication of a symmetrical relationship existing.

Theory of intertype relationships[ edit ] Main article: Socionics Socionics has proposed a theory of intertype relationships between psychological types based on a modified version of C.

Interpersonal communication

Jung 's theory of psychological types. Socionics allocates 16 types of the relations — from most attractive and comfortable up to disputed. The understanding of a nature of these relations helps to solve a number of problems of the interpersonal relations, including aspects of psychological and sexual compatibility.

the difference between impersonal and interpersonal communication

The researches of married couples by Aleksandr Bukalov et al. The study of socionic type allocation in casually selected married couples confirmed the main rules of the theory of intertype relations in socionics. First, they introduce media choice as a salient question in interpersonal relationships. As recently as the late 20th century, people faced relatively few options for communicating with interpersonal partners; by the early years of the 21st century, people possessed a sometimes bewildering array of channel choices.

Moreover, these choices matter because of the relational messages they send; for example, choosing to end a romantic relationship over the phone may communicate more sensitivity than choosing to do so via text messaging, or publicly on social media.

interpersonal and impersonal communication relationship

Second, communication technology affords new opportunities to begin relationships and, through structural features of the media, shape how those meetings occur. Third, communication technology alters the practices people use to maintain interpersonal relationships. In addition to placing traditional forms of relational maintenance in more public spaces, social media facilitates passive browsing as a strategy for keeping up with interpersonal partners.

Moreover, mobile technology affords partners increased geographic and temporal flexibility when keeping contact with partners, yet simultaneously, it may produce feelings of over-connectedness that hamper the desire for personal autonomy. Fourth, communication technology makes interpersonal networks more visibly manifest and preserves their continuity over time.

This may provide an ongoing convoy of social support and, through increased efficiency, augment the size and diversity of social networks. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. If you are a student or academic complete our librarian recommendation form to recommend the Oxford Research Encyclopedias to your librarians for an institutional free trial.