The Stayover

According to one study, in press for publication in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and reported in the New York Times, the stayover refers to a type of part-time cohabitation. From an analysis of 22 college students in stayover relationships, a few interesting characteristics emerge:

Stayovers develop informally.

Stayovers are convenient rather than committed relationships (as with cohabitation).

Stayovers do not share financial responsibilities (as do cohabitating couples).

Stayovers do not keep their personal belongings in the other’s home.

Stayovers are more like guests than roommates.

Stayovers may be a new phenomenon or may have been around for years but never studied.

This is another type of relationship that we don't regularly discuss in our interpersonal textbooks but is obviously one that our students do. The long-term implications of stayovers are not clear and perhaps future research will look into these.

The Economics of Attractiveness

A recent article in Time, under “Economy,” details the economic advantage of attractiveness, a topic we don't address in our interpersonal textbooks when we talk about attraction theory, interviewing, workplace success, and similar topics. Reality is tough to write into textbooks. The article, based on research reported in Daniel Hamermesh’s Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful, reports that the difference in life-time earnings between the typical attractive worker and the below-average worker is $230,000. On a five-point scale, men who score 4 or 5 (indicating above average in attractiveness) earn 17% more than men who score 1 and 2. For women the difference in 12%. One conclusion is that good looks are more important for men than for women, at least financially. Even more dramatic is the conclusion that discrimination against the unattractive costs the economy $20 billion per year.

Communication Strategies: Talk between people with and without speech or language problems

Talk between people with and without speech or language problems can be uncertain and often awkward. Here are some suggestions (drawn from a variety of sources: www.nsastutter.org/material/indep.php?matid=189, www.aphasia.org/, http://spot.pcc.edu/~rjacobs/career/communication_tips.htm, and www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/comucate.htm) for making this talk more comfortable. A comment on a previous and similar post noted that a smile and eye contact are also important and we might add them to all the suggestions.

If you’re the person without a speech or language disorder, generally:

·        Avoid finishing another’s sentences. Finishing the person’s sentences may communicate the idea that you’re impatient and don’t want to spend the extra time necessary to interact effectively.

·        Avoid giving directions to the person with a speech disorder. Saying “slow down” or “relax” will often seem insulting and will make further communication more difficult.

·        Maintain eye contact. Show interest and at the same time avoid showing any signs of impatience or embarrassment.

·        Ask for clarification as needed. If you don’t understand what the person said, ask him or her to repeat it. Don’t pretend that you understand when you don’t.

·        Don’t treat people who have language problems like children. A person with aphasia, say, who has difficulty with names or nouns generally, is in no way childlike. Similarly, a person who stutters is not a slow thinker; in fact, stutterers differ from non-stutterers only in their oral fluency.

If you’re the person with a speech or language disorder, generally:

·        Let the other person know what your special needs are. If you stutter, you might tell others that you have difficulty with certain sounds and so they need to be patient.

·        Demonstrate your own comfort. Show that you have a positive attitude toward the interpersonal situation. If you appear comfortable and positive, others will also.

·        Be patient. For example, have patience with those who try to finish your sentences; They’re likely just trying to be helpful.

Onymous and Anonymous Messages

Speech communication and interpersonal communication textbooks identify lots of characteristics of verbal messages. For example, in The Interpersonal Communication Book, I identify the packaged nature of verbal messages, message meanings are in people, meanings are denotative and connotative, messages vary in abstraction, messages vary in politeness, messages can criticize and praise, and messages vary in assertiveness, and messages can confirm and disconfirm. The idea here is to explain the nature of the message system and at the same time to include some communication skills. In going through the Canadian Edition of Messages, co-authors Rena Shimoni and Dawne Clark include a short section on anonymous messages in the workplace. It got me to thinking that this is another essential characteristic of messages that needs to be covered, especially in this age of social networking.  Hence, this (still very preliminary) explanation of onymity and anonymity. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Verbal Messages Can be Onymous or Anonymous

Some messages are “signed” or onymous; that is, the author of the message is clearly identified, as it is in your textbooks, news-related editorials, feature articles, and of course when you communicate face-to-face or by phone or chat. In many cases, you have the opportunity to respond directly to the speaker/writer—in ways varying from interrupting the speaker to sending an email or commenting on a blog post--and voice your opinions, your agreement or disagreement, for example. Other messages are anonymous: the author is not identified. For example, on faculty evaluation questionnaires and on RateMyProfessor.com, the ratings and the comments are published anonymously as they were in the organizational suggestion box.

            The Internet has made anonymity extremely easy and there are currently a variety of websites that offer to send your emails to your boss, your ex-partner, your secret crush, your noisy neighbors, or your inadequate lawyer--all anonymously. Thus, your message gets sent but you are not identified with it. For good or ill, you don’t have to deal with the consequences of your message.

One obvious advantage of anonymity is that it allows people to voice opinions that may be unpopular and may thus encourage greater honesty. In the case of RateMyProfessor.com, for example, anonymity ensures that the student writing negative comments about an instructor will not be penalized.  An anonymous email to a sexual partner informing him or her about your having an STD and suggesting getting tested and treated (http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110809/sti-bc-syphilis-sexual-infections-110809/20110809/?hub=EdmontonHome) might never get said in a face-to-face or phone conversation. The presumption is that the anonymity encourages greater honesty and openness. In fact, Alcoholics Anonymous holds this to be one of their guiding assumptions. Without anonymity AA would likely not have grown over the years as it has. The promised anonymity encourages people to attend meetings and to speak openly and honestly about their addiction. The same assumption is made in questionnaires; you’ll be more honest is your name is not attached to your message.

Anonymity also enables people to disclose their inner feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams with a depth of feeling that they may be otherwise reluctant to do. A variety of websites which enable you to maintain anonymity are available for these purposes. And in these cases, not only are you anonymous but the people who read your messages are also anonymous, a situation that is likely to encourage a greater willingness to disclosure and to make disclosures at a deeper level than otherwise. 

Such anonymous messages provide useful information that might never get communicated. For example, the professor can get feedback from such anonymous messages that will help him or her improve. And the lover may seek treatment in time to prevent further spreading of the STD, for example. Without anonymity these people would likely not receive this potentially very useful informative feedback.

Anonymous messages may also be used to test ideas and to remove oneself from any implication of inappropriateness. And so, a reporter might say “A respected unnamed source says….” or, “it’s been rumored that …” or “I’ve heard it said that …” In these cases the reporter is absolved of having the idea associated with him or her even though the reporter is asking the question. 

An obvious disadvantage is that anonymity might encourage people to go to extremes—since there are no consequences to your message—to voice opinions that are outrageous. This in turn can easily spark conflict that is likely to prove largely unproductive.  With anonymous messages, you can’t evaluate the credibility of the source. Advice on depression, for example, may come from someone who knows nothing about depression and may make useless recommendations.  Or a student may give a professor an extremely negative or extremely positive evaluation based on the most recent test or grade on a term paper—an evaluation which doesn’t really assess the larger and more general issues of teacher effectiveness.

On the other hand, anonymity is used regularly in reviewing submissions to professional research publications. And so, authors must submit their manuscript without identifying who they are. The manuscript is then sent to reviewers—other professionals in the field—who evaluate the research without their evaluations being contaminated by the authors’ previous publications, reputation, or personality. Also, in many cases, the reviewers’ names are kept anonymous to ensure greater honesty. So, for example, when the manuscript for this revision is sent out to reviewers, I am not told who said what. And any mention of the reviewers’ academic affiliations are carefully removed from the reviews before I receive them. The reviews come to me marked Reviewer No. 1, Reviewer No. 2, and so on. This situation, as you can imagine is both good and bad. It’s good in that it encourages honesty and openness from the reviewer and it’s bad in the sense that the credentials of the reviewer are important—I’d be likely to give greater credibility to a recognized researcher commenting on the research cited than I might from someone who has never done any research.

Anonymity also raises an interesting ethical question. For example, let’s say your book or your teaching effectiveness or your work performance is negatively reviewed by some anonymous individual. Some would argue that you have a right to know who this person is; after all, this person may dislike you personally or because of your cultural identification—issues that have nothing to do with the value of your book or your effectiveness as a teacher or organizational worker. On the other hand, the anonymity might encourage greater openness and honesty since the author doesn’t have to fear any consequences of what he or she said. It’s unlikely that a new worker is going to criticize his or her boss or professor without the cloak of anonymity; the cost of identifying oneself in cases like this might be getting fired or failing the course.

Websites in general and social network sites in particular—along with assorted researchers and communication-watchers are currently exploring the advantages and disadvantages of onymity and anonymity. So, what is and what is not anonymous is likely to change over the coming years.

Saying the Right Thing

Here's an interesting article--10 Things Your Girlfriend Needs to Hear You Say. The 10 things are equally important, it seems to me, for the boyfriend to hear--whether same or opposite sex. The suggestions are good ones and echo the kinds of things we talk about in our textbooks--supportiveness, immediacy, complimenting, being polite, and so on.

Breaking Up Via Facebook

Here's an interesting article on teenagers' romantic breakups and poses some interesting questions. For example, is it o.k. to breakup via a posting on your former-partner's wall? Is this preferable to breaking up face-to-face? Is it o.k. to breakup by simply changing your status to "single"? If you do break up, what is the proper etiquette for dealing with your former partner's friends, siblings, or parents? Do you de-friend them? Do you de-friend your partner or simply not communicate? Even without reading the article, a fair number of people have already dealt with this issue and probably have strong feelings about what is and what is not proper, appropriate, adult, considerate, etc.

It's an interesting world and getting interestinger every day!

Communication Strategies: Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face

[A user of Essential Elements of Public Speaking thought that these concepts should be discussed in the text; I had omitted them because of space limitations. So, I post these very useful concepts here.]

When you have the opportunity to persuade your audience on several occasions (rather than simply delivering one speech), two strategies will prove helpful: the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques (Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Yes! 50 scientificaly proven ways to be persuasive. NY: Free Press.)

            As its name implies, the foot-in-the-door technique involves requesting something small, something that your audience will easily agree to. Once they agree to this small request, you then make your real request. People are more apt to comply with a large request after they have complied with a similar but much smaller request. For example, in one study the objective was to get people to put a “Drive Safely” sign on their lawn (a large request). When this (large) request was made first, only about 17 percent of the people were willing to agree. However, when this request was preceded by a much smaller request (to sign a petition), between 50 and 76 percent granted permission to install the sign. Agreement with the smaller request paves the way for the larger request and puts the audience into an agreeable mood.

            With the door-in-the-face technique, the opposite of foot-in-the-door, you first make a large request that you know will be refused and then follow it with a more moderate request. For example, your large request might be “We’re asking people to donate $100 for new school computers.” When this is refused, you make a more moderate request, the one you really want your listeners to comply with (for example, “Might you be willing to contribute $10?”). In changing from the large to the more moderate request, you demonstrate your willingness to compromise and your sensitivity to your listeners. The general idea here is that your listeners will feel that since you’ve made concessions, they should also make concessions and at least contribute something. Listeners will probably also feel that $10 is actually quite a small amount considering the initial request and are more likely to donate the $10.

Communication Strategies: Talk between people with and without visual impairments

Talk between people with and people without visual impairments can be made a lot more comfortable by following a few simple suggestions (drawn from a variety of sources: www.cincyblind.org, www.abwa.asn.au/, www.mass.gov, www.ndmig.com, and www.batchelor. edu.au/disability/communication). A few general comments first: People vary greatly in their visual abilities; some are totally blind, some are partially sighted, and some have unimpaired vision. Ninety percent of people who are “legally blind” have some vision. All people, however, have the same need for communication and information. Here are some tips for making communication better between those who have visual impairments and those without such difficulties.

If you’re the person without visual impairment and are talking with a visually impaired person, generally:

·         Identify yourself. Don’t assume the visually impaired person will recognize your voice.

·         Face your listener; you’ll be easier to hear. Don’t shout. Most people who are visually impaired are not hearing impaired. Speak at your normal volume.

·         Encode into speech all the meanings you wish to communicate. Remember that your gestures, eye movements, and facial expressions cannot be seen by the visually impaired.

·         Use audible turn-taking cues. When you pass the role of speaker to a person who is visually impaired, don’t rely on nonverbal cues; instead, say something like “Do you agree with that, Joe?”

·         Use normal vocabulary and discuss topics that you would discuss with sighted people. Don’t avoid terms like “see” or “look” or even “blind.” Don’t avoid discussing a television show or the way your new car looks; these are normal topics for all people.

If you are a person with visual impairment and are talking with a person without visual impairment:

·         Help the sighted person meet your special communication needs. If you want your surroundings described, ask. If you want the person to read the road signs, ask.

·         Be patient with the sighted person. Many people are nervous talking with people who are visually impaired for fear of offending. Put them at ease in a way that also makes you more comfortable.

·         Demonstrate your comfort. When appropriate, let the other person know that you’re comfortable with the interaction, verbally or nonverbally.