Interpersonal Communication Overview

Overview

Interpersonal communication is an important part of what it means to be human. It allows for social and family networks to be built and maintained, and it fosters personal development and professional development (Wood, 2015). Interpersonal communication covers a wide range of communication types between two or more people. Methods of interpersonal communication involve verbal cues and non-verbal cues and also encompass written communication and, especially with the advent of digital media, mass communication. These interpersonal communication methods can be used for various purposes—making friends, asserting dominance, manipulating the other party, or escalating or disengaging a romantic relationship. Depending on how effective verbal, non-verbal and written cues are, the outcome of the communication will be more or less successful.

It is acknowledged by many researchers and theoreticians from various fields that there is a difference between simple communication and interpersonal communication. Wood (2015) provides a helpful framework to understand how "personal" different types of communication are. This framework, first conceptualized by Martin Buber in the 1970s, identifies three levels of communication that form part of a continuum. These levels are I-It, I-You, and I-Thou. For I-It communication, the communicators treat each other like objects. For example, e-mails from an administrator at a university may feel like (or may be) a form letter with no personal intent. While communication efforts in this category directed from one person to another, the framework would not classify such impersonal communication this as interpersonal communication. For I-You communication, some individuality is acknowledged. An example of this could be small talk with someone in line at the supermarket. This is a basic level of interpersonal communication. I-Thou communication is when both people affirm and cherish the uniqueness of the other. In Buber's framework, this is considered the most intimate and rare form of communication. While there are many ways of defining and conceptualizing interpersonal communication, this framework highlights that interpersonal communication has less to do with the number of participants and more to do with how much the participants acknowledge each other's humanity.

One of the easiest types of interpersonal communication to conceptualize is a face-to-face interaction between two people. In a face-to-face interaction, individuals will rely on verbal cues for effective communication. Language can be used to identify the topic of a conversation, the relationship between that topic and other topics, and the actions associated with the subject or the object of a sentence. The way a sentence is structured will give an indication of the type of communication and the importance of certain elements in the sentence. A parent instructing a child to clean up his or her room could phrase the communication as follows: "This room is messy. It should be cleaned." This statement verbally communicates the state of the room and an alternative, preferred state of the room. However, the way the information is structured is somewhat vague in instructing the child to clean the room. A more direct structure to communicate this message would be for the parent to say, "Your room is messy. Please clean it." This identifies the responsibility for the room as the child's ("your") and gives a clear command phrased politely as a request.

Verbal cues are rarely studied in isolation. This is because non-verbal cues are considered by many to be as important (or in some cases more important) as verbal cues. Studies have shown that from an early age, children are sensitive to social and visual cues when forming meaning for new words (Brandone, Golinkoff, Pence & Hirsh-Pasek, 2007). This implies an inherent link between verbal cues and non-verbal cues. Several key functions of non-verbal cues are forming impressions, developing and maintaining relationships, expressing dominance, and showing emotion (Guerrero, 2014). Going back to the example of a parent's instruction for a child to clean his or her room, delivering the verbal cue with a smile may communicate that the request is not urgent whereas a frown and crossed arms or a pointed finger would communicate the serious nature of the request. In this example, emotion (anger or frustration) and dominance is being expressed through non-verbal communication.

While verbal and nonverbal cues are often used together for effective communication, they do not exist in isolation. They are impacted by the environment in which the face-to-face interaction is taking place (McLean, 2005). Environmental variables can include the light, the existing level of background noise, and the formality of the setting. For example, a formal office setting may facilitate more effective professional communication among co-workers collaborating on a project whereas a relaxed café would promote the development of a more personal relationship among the same set of co-workers. Environment goes hand in hand with the timing of the communication and the personal histories of the individuals (Wood, 2015). In terms of timing, communicating an issue with a partner immediately upon their return from a stressful day of work will most likely impact the outcome of the conversation. In terms of personal history, a close friend is more likely to engage in a deep conversation about personal health issues than a new or casual acquaintance. Personal history also includes the cultures of the communicators, which may impact the emphasis placed on different cues and power dynamic between the individuals. Environment, timing, and the relationship between the two people engaging in a face-to-face interaction will impact the outcome of the communication.

Interpersonal communication has been studied in a variety of different contexts. When interpersonal communication emerged as a field of study in the 1950s, researchers' primary focus was on how verbal and non-verbal cues were used to generate social influence. Over time, interpersonal communication has been recognized as key to accomplishing a diversity of social goals. Berger (2005) identified five theoretical perspectives that have been used to understand traditional interpersonal communication. The first perspective encompasses interpersonal adaptation theories. These theories involve developing explanations for why individuals adjust or adapt their verbal and non-verbal communications during face-to-face interactions. Studies in this category often focus on interpreting non-verbal reactions in the context of verbal communication. The second perspective involves message production. Theories about message production focus on communication characteristics found in individuals who are successful in generating easily digestible messages, specifically regarding how actions are assembled to construct an outcome and the very development of social interaction goals.

The third perspective includes theories around the uncertainty inherent in interpersonal communication. While each individual partaking in a communication event is aware of their own thoughts, the thoughts of others are unknown. These theories often assume that the goal of interpersonal communication is to remove this uncertainty to better establish order and understanding in the conversation. The fourth perspective pertains to theories that focus on interpersonal communication that is deceptive or dishonest. These theories focus on explaining the value of simple deceptions, such as complimenting a host on a meal when it was not to the taste of the guest, and the ability of the receiver of these types of communications to detect the insincerity. The fifth perspective includes dialectical theories, which are more metaphorical than theoretical. One of the key dialectical perspectives that Berger (2005) describes is relational dialectics. Relational dialectics includes small sets of assumptions, such as the assumption that individuals in relationships will experience contradiction since two unique people are coming together. This creates a relationship that is ever-changing and always in flux. This perspective, along with the other perspectives Berger (2005) mentions, form a comprehensive collection of the various ways to study and understand interpersonal communication.

Applications

Interpersonal communication is important for a number of interpersonal interactions. The earliest form of interpersonal communication in an individual's life history is between parent and child. How parents communicate with their children shapes the child's understanding of their identity and the world around them (Wood, 2015). One of the ways in which parents communicate with their children is through direct definitions that tell they child who they are (Wood, 2015). These can come in the forms of positive direct definitions (e.g., "You are great at coloring!") and negative definitions (e.g., "You are so stupid!"). These direct definitions can impact a child's self-esteem so much that the excessive, constant use of negative direct definitions (i.e., verbal abuse) are considered by some to be as damaging as physical abuse (Wood, 2015). Direct definitions also play a role in other forms of communication, such as establishing and maintaining romantic relationships or being an effective teacher.

Outside of the immediate family unit, interpersonal communication is used to establish friendships and romantic relationships. Through interpersonal communication, pairs can establish what they have in common, how they deal with conflict, what topics of conversation are off the table, and to what extent they can rely on each other. One key way that friendships and romantic relationships build is through reciprocal self-disclosure (Wood, 2015). Sharing personal information and receiving personal details in return helps each person establish their own identity and understand the identity of the other more fully. Romantic partners often extend this to include what they imagine the progression of the relationship into the future to be. By sharing their views of the future, couples can progress toward jointly established goals, like buying a house or having kids, and help each other with individual goals, such as career advancement.

Besides family and friends, there are others that individuals communicate with on an interpersonal level, whether they are colleagues or members of a sports team or interest group. However, some of the most formative individuals in this extended network are teachers. Teaching requires a great deal of interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication between teacher and student has been identified as one of four key aspects of fostering learning and personal development in kindergarten through third grade classrooms by providing instructional and emotional support (Pianta, Downer & Hamre, 2016).

While these interactions are particularly important for younger students, older students also benefit from interpersonal interactions with teachers. This is true even in a university environment where classes are larger and less interactive, interpersonal communication still matters. Teachers must go through information at a speed and in a style that allows students to engage with the material and the teacher. While younger students may have a better connection with a warmer, more approachable teacher, undergraduate students have been found to respond better to an authoritative teacher (Coldren & Hively, 2009). This highlights that teachers must shape their interpersonal communication style to suit the target age group.

Viewpoints

Over time, interpersonal communication has been impacted by technological developments. The telephone, for example, allowed instant interpersonal communication with people who were not present. Advancements that led to the rise of the digital age have impacted interpersonal communication in even greater ways. Rapid written communication has become a fundamental part of personal and professional forms of interpersonal interactions. As such, digital age has given rise to a sixth focus for theoretical study (Berger, 2005), the evaluation of interactions mediated by computers or other communication technologies and the effectiveness (or defectiveness) of technology at fostering interpersonal communication.

Digital interpersonal communication has a number of advantages. It aids in the organization and recall of information. For example, instead of trying to remember the five items a partner asked for from the supermarket, the shopper can simply access a digital list sent by the partner. It is also an effective tool for communicating the same message to a disparate assemblage of individuals. In the field of healthcare, information and communication technologies are used to keep a detailed and accessible record of treatments provided to a single patient by different members of a medical team. New communication technologies also help health care providers build rapport with patients by allowing patients increased access to their doctors while still keeping costly face-to-face time at a minimum. Better doctor-patient rapport has been shown to increase patient's commitment to their own self-care (Clochesy, Dolansky, Hickman & Gittner, 2015).

However, the digital environment effectively removes the non-verbal cues inherent in interpersonal communication. Since the tone of voice and the body language of the sender is unknown, the receiver may struggle to interpret the more subtle meanings associated with a message. For example, if a boss responds to a report with the statement, "This fails to take into account the overarching goals of the client," an employee could read this communication a number of ways. Perhaps the boss is delivering constructive criticism and the changes to the report will be small. On the other hand, perhaps the boss is furious and will be having someone else re-write the report. The employee may then respond assuming one of the possible intentions. If their assumption is incorrect, it could promote a continued misunderstanding between employee and boss.

The digital environment promotes asynchronous communication, meaning that a message may be received well after the message was originally sent. Instead of calling a business partner to ask when they might be available to meet with a client, a message can be sent using a wide variety of platforms. This is particularly useful for communications that do not warrant interruptions of more important tasks. However, asynchronous communication also comes with its challenges and disadvantages. If the original message is unclear, there will be a time lag in the identification of a confusing element of the message. Then there will be an additional lag as the recipient of the original message waits for clarification. Face-to-face communication is often more efficient at identifying and clarifying misunderstandings.

Another issue with asynchronous communication is the sender's interpretation of the receiver's delay. In the example of the boss who identified an error in the employee's report, imagine the employee responds with the question, "Would you like me to fix this or will you be having someone else make these adjustments?" If the employee does not hear back from the employer, the delay could be interpreted as deliberately ignoring the employee. The employee might fixate on whether they worded their own message correctly and what possible interpretations their employer might assign to it. The anticipation of a response can cause the sender stress and anxiety about how their message was received and what response they might receive in return.

Some have argued that the balance between the benefits and issues with information and communication technologies has weakened the personal nature of interpersonal communication. With fewer opportunities for face-to face interactions, individuals are more likely to interact on an I-It level (Wood, 2015). In the medical field, practitioners have been accused of being distracted by technology or of using technology to avoid face-to-face interactions (Joseph, 2018). These critics advocate a return to more personalized care that doesn't rely on a digital interface.

The dawn of social media has also revolutionized interpersonal communication, drawing on the human brain’s basic need to establish social connections (Zhong, 2022). The proliferation of social media sites has allowed people to connect in ways never before possible, and increased the ease of group communication. People have also adapted to social media communication, substituting new ways to interact for the personal cues found in face-to-face communication.

Bibliography

Adriani, P.M. et al. (2024, Mar. 6). Non-violent communication as a technology in interpersonal relationships in health work: A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 24, bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-024-10753-2#citeas:~:text=DOI-,https%3A//doi.org/10.1186/s12913%2D024%2D10753%2D2,-Share%20this%20article

Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 415–447.

Brandone, A. C., Golinkoff, R. M., Pence, K. L., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2007). Action speaks louder than words: Young children differentially weight perceptual, social, and linguistic cues to learn verbs. Child Development, 78(4), 1322–1342.

Clochesy, J. M., Dolansky, M. A., Hickman Jr., R. L., & Gittner, L. S. (2015). Enhancing communication between patients and healthcare providers: SBAR3. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 38(2), 237–252.

Coldren, J., & Hively, J. (2009). Interpersonal teaching style and student impression formation. College Teaching, 57(2), 93–98.

Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Interpersonal functions of nonverbal communication. In C.R. Berger (Ed.), Interpersonal Communication. (pp. 53–76). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Joseph, R. (2018, February 25). Doctors, Revolt! New York Times. p. 12. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=128178603&site=ehost-live

McLean, S. (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Pianta, R., Downer, J. & Hamre, B. (2016). Quality in early education classrooms: Definitions, gaps, and systems. The Future of Children, 26(2), 119–137.

Wood, J. T. (2015). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Zhong, B. (2022). Social Media Communication: Trends and Theories. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.