C H A P T E R 1

INTRODUCTION TO
HUMAN COMMUNICATION
MODELS OF COMMUNICATION Bargaining
Definitions Evaluation
Linear Model of Communication THE PSYCHO-ENVIRONMENT AS CONTEXT
Interactional Model of Communication
Human Relations Theory
Transactional Model of Communication
Psychological Safety
An Instructional Model: The Ross Model
COMMUNICATING INTERPERSONALLY
CONTEXT INTERRELATIONSHIPS
The Importance of Interpersonal Communication
Hierarchy of Contexts
Levels of Communication ETHICS: RESPONSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS
SETTINGS AS CONTEXT Lies and Mental Reservations
Special Situations
Place and Ritual
Culpable Ignorance
Purpose
Social Ventilation SUMMING UP
Seeking Help and Information

1
2 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

On a daily basis human beings, regardless of who they are or where they come
from, all take part in interpersonal communication. Often we are unaware of our
participation in an interpersonal communication interaction because these actions
have become such an ingrained part of our daily lives that we go about them mind-
lessly and automatically—in the same fashion our bodies go about automatically
keeping our hearts beating.
We argue with our roommates and family members over who ate the last
of the favorite cereal in the morning. We make comments about the weather with
the individuals on the bus, in the elevator or at the coffee shop. We email profes-
sors for clarification on assignments and text friends to find out what’s going on
later that night. These are things that may seem ordinary and mundane, but are all
acts of interpersonal communication.
At this point you may be asking, “If I am already an expert on interper-
sonal communication due to my life time of experiences, why then should I spend
time learning more about it from a textbook?” The simple answer is that though
we may “do” interpersonal communication on a daily basis, the majority of us
aren’t actually that good at it. Interpersonal communication creates the foundations
for the majority of the things in life that bring us the greatest of happiness and the
worst of sorrow. Therefore, we should all take time to get good at it.
This textbook will help you to understand what interpersonal communi-
cation is and how it works. Once we have a greater understanding of the processes
of interpersonal communication, we can apply that knowledge to our personal sit-
uations. We can work towards a level of interpersonal communication competence
that limits the times of sorrow and increases the times of happiness.
In order to understand the concept of interpersonal communication we
must first have an understanding of communication in general.

DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNICATION
Definitions of human communication range from “speech is the great medium
through which human cooperation is brought about”1 to the more specific defini-
tion of the American College Dictionary, “the imparting or interchange of
thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.”
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 3

Though there are many definitions of communication, they all seem to agree
that ideas must be shared before communication can exist. Communication should
be thought of as a process, not simply as a transfer of meaning from one mind to
another. There is something necessarily mutual about human communication;
each party influences the other. Communication is a truly dynamic process.
Communication involves common experience and mutual influence. Real
communication is very difficult if there is not at least some small opportunity for
two-way influence. Whether we know it or not, we communicate hoping to influ-
ence others to respond as we want them to respond. This process has no beginning
or end and is ever changing, dynamic, and mutual. The vast numbers of definitions
of communication are very similar. For the purposes of this book, communication
will be broadly defined as the use of verbal and nonverbal messages to create ongo-
ing mutual influence.

COMMUNICATION MODELS
It is often best to look at a visual simplification of the complex relationships in-
volved in communication through models of communication. We will discuss
three prevailing models of communication and introduce you to a fourth to help
gain insight into our definition of communication and to work towards a better
understanding of how interpersonal communication fits into this definition.
We will start with the oldest and most simple model of communication: the
linear communication model. This model is based on the idea of one-way commu-
nication in which a message is simply sent from one person and received by an-
other. This model appears to be quite simple, yet it captures a large part of what is
going on in communication.

Linear Model of Communication

The linear model of communication includes several concepts used in later, more
complex models. (See Figure 1.1.) The sender is the source or originator of the
message. The message is a verbal (spoken) or nonverbal (behavior or gesture) trans-
mission of ideas. The sender goes through a process of encoding to translate ideas
and emotions into a code (in our case verbal or nonverbal symbols). The message
4 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

FIGURE 1.1 LINEAR MODEL OF COMMUNICATION

NOISE

Encoding MESSAGE Decoding

Sender Receiver
CHANNEL

NOISE

is then passed to the receiver or the intended target of the message. The receiver
goes through a process of decoding to interpret the translated ideas of the sender.
The passing of the message travels through a channel or pathway of communica-
tion. The channel can be anything from a text message to a face-to-face discussion
to sky writing. Anything that interferes with the transmission of the message is con-
sidered noise. Noise consists of anything that physically or psychologically gets in
the way of the message being received and understood. Physical noise is any out-
side or external stimulus that makes the message difficult to understand by the re-
ceiver. An example of physical noise could be a police siren that drowns out the
voice of the sender. Psychological noise is any internal stimulus that makes the
message difficult to understand by the receiver. An example of psychological noise
could be not understanding a message because you are too busy wondering if you
remembered to turn off your stove.
To apply this model to your life, think about being out to dinner with a friend.
You taste your potatoes and realize they are a bit bland and could use a dash of salt.
You notice that the salt is on the other side of the table next to your friend. You
ask, “Would you please pass the salt?” You have acted as the sender/encoder of a mes-
sage (verbal transmission of your need for the salt) through the channel of your
voice to the receiver/decoder (your friend next to the salt). As long as the server does-
n’t drop a tray next to your table (physical noise), and your friend is not daydream-
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 5

ing or not paying attention (psychological noise), this should be a fairly simple lin-
ear exchange of communication.
As we discussed while defining communication, we communicate hoping to
influence others to respond as we want them to. Given the dinner table example,
you are hoping to influence your friend to pass the salt. The success of your influ-
ence would be determined by the act of your friend actually passing the salt. Based
on the one-way linear model of communication you really don’t have any way of
knowing the success of your influence. You don’t even know if your message ever
reached your friend based on this model because it is essentially linear; that is, it
goes from a source to a destination. There is no clear representation of a circular
response, and no clear explanation of the ongoing mutual influence involved in our
definition of communication. The need for a way to measure if communication ac-
tually took place (if the influence even happened) leads to a more complete model
of communication called the interactional model of communication.

Interactional Model of Communication

The interactional model of communication contains all of the concepts of the
linear model and adds the concept of feedback. Feedback is a response from the
receiver to the sender about the message. The addition of the concept of feedback
makes the linear model become more circular (See figure 1.2).

FIGURE 1.2 INTERACTIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION

NOISE

s MESSAGE Decodes
Sender/ Encode Receiver/
Receiver Sender
Decod s
es MESSAGE Encode

NOISE
6 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

Wilbur Schramm is one of the early theorists to demonstrate the model of

communication as circular (see Figure 1.2).2 The decoding of a message by the re-
ceiver starts that person’s process of encoding—hence, the complete circle.
The roles of encoder and decoder are interchangeable. Thus, each person in
the communication process is encoder and decoder. This circular model also sug-
gests the interesting notion that these functions can go on simultaneously. While
you are talking, your listener is not only breaking your code and trying to make
sense of it (decoding), but he or she is also considering his or her next transmis-
sion (encoding). In the case of nonverbals, messages may already be encoded and
on their way. For example, when someone is saying something with which you
disagree, but you don’t want to interrupt him/her, you continue listening silently
(decoding) while shaking your head back and forth in a “no” motion (encoding).
Schramm also suggests that the sender and receiver can perform their func-
tions only in terms of their own
fields of experiences. Thus, both
the receiver and sender are lim-
ited by their experience.
Nevertheless, there must be some
experience common to both in
order for the communication to
be useful and for the intended
message to be conveyed. For ex-
ample, if you were asking some-
one that did not speak the lan-
guage you speak to pass the salt
you would most likely make a
shaking motion over your plate
of food, point to them, and then
point to yourself hoping the
other individual has had some
common experience of shaking
Both the sender and receiver must share a field of experience, such as lan- salt on food. If the receiver
guage, to communicate effectively. comes from a culture where salt is
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 7

not used for shaking on food and you don’t share any common words that ex-
press your desire for salt, you may be communicatively out of luck, leaving you
with bland potatoes.
We may sometimes have to build bridges or overlaps before we can have com-
munication. Furthermore, for your messages to be most effective, they must some-
how fall in the area of overlap. Two people from completely different cultures with
different languages and no common experiences may find that communication be-
comes nearly impossible without help from a third party such as a translator. Even
then, barriers are everywhere. The first priority would be to identify common
ground. Common ground or mutual understanding is important in communica-
tion and essential for interpersonal communication.

Transactional Model of Communication

The transactional model of communication more accurately reflects a real-world
model of interpersonal communication by illustrating that people communicating act
simultaneously as the sender and receiver in a cooperative fashion. This cooperation
makes the sender and the receiver responsible for the effectiveness of the communica-
tion. The transactional model displays communication interactions as ongoing nego-
tiations of meaning. As mentioned earlier, it is very difficult for two people coming
from completely different cultures with different languages and no common experi-
ences to take part in this negotiation of meaning. Individuals come to a communica-
tion interaction with their own field of experience. This includes things like personal
culture, history, gender, social influences and past impacting experiences. Your field of
experience is the frame of reference you bring to each situation you experience. At
times, individuals’ fields of experiences overlap and they share things in common.
Other times, individuals’ fields of experiences do not overlap; and because they share
no common past experiences, it is difficult to negotiate meaning. (See Figure 1.3)

An Instructional Model: The Ross Model

The Ross Model focuses on the human organism and particularly human sign-sym-
bol behavior. In interpreting this model remember that we are capable of being
both sender and receiver at the same time; we are transceivers.3 The frame of the
8 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

FIGURE 1.3 TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION

NOISE

Encoding Decoding
Sender/Receiver Decoding CHANNEL MESSAGE CHANNEL Encoding Receiver/Sender

Personal Personal
Field of NOISE
Field of
Experience Experience

Shared
Field of
Experience

Ross Model attempts to show everything, including the world in which this com-
munication takes place. The picture frame suggests the importance of situation,
mood, context, and psychological climate.
The situation is the reason the interaction is taking place and could range
from a date to a simple exchange of homework information. Situation could
then make a real difference. Mood refers to feelings of the moment. At differ-
ent times our mood might be happy, angry, tense, and so on. Our mood can
greatly affect what we say or hear and how we say or hear something. Context
is the framework into which your situation fits. Note how the word paper
changes in the following contexts: The paper was late today (newspaper); the
paper is crooked (wallpaper); it is an A paper (homework). If we used the phrase
“the paper is crooked” in the context of a newspaper we may perceive some sort
of corrupt management by the editor. Different contexts bring out different
meanings. Psychological climate is a lot like weather or physical climate. Just
as our weather might be bitterly cold, so too might the psychological climate of
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 9

FIGURE 1.4 THE ROSS COMMUNICATION MODEL (1982)

Psychological climate

Mutual Influence
Perception Perception

Selecting Encoding Decoding Selecting

and sorting and sorting
Signs–Symbols
Language
Arrangement
Voice Action
Momentary mood

Idea Feedback Idea

Context
reconstructed
Channel
** Media Method
*
Sending

Knowledge Knowledge
Past experience Past experience
*
Feelings Feelings
Attitudes Attitudes
Emotions, etc. Emotions, etc.

Situation

a classroom, a meeting, or a date. An unhappy, impersonal (cold) psychological

climate would hinder rather than help communication. Sometimes climate is
the most important part of a message.
Let’s assume that the person on the left side of the model in Figure 1.4 is a
woman who wishes to communicate a message (a concept or an idea) to the other
person. The idea is represented by the star inside her brain. Let’s suppose the con-
cept is an abstract one, such as love. The fan projecting from each brain represents
our twelve billion brain cells. In this woman’s brain are stored her knowledge and
past experience, her feelings, attitudes, emotions, and many more things (her frame
of reference) that make her the person she is.
10 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

The brain, composed of 12 billion working parts, has enough storage capacity to accept
10 new facts every second. It is conservatively estimated that the human brain can store
an amount of information equivalent to 100 trillion different words (which would mean
acquiring one word per second continuously for 1,000,000 years). In a lifetime of 70
years, a human being may store information roughly equivalent to a mere trillion words.4

Our sender now sorts through and selects from her storehouse of knowledge
and past experience, choosing items that help her define and refine what she is try-
ing to say. She has to have a basis upon which to perform this operation—a pro-
gram, if you will. We can think of the brain in some ways as a computer. The fore-
brain, for example, becomes a kind of input regulator into which we feed the
program. This woman’s program had better include at least three questions, or she
is already in trouble! These are: (1) What do I have stored under love? (2) What do
I know about the other person? (3) What do I have filed for this particular situation
and context? You can almost visualize the program in action—assessing, accepting,
rejecting, cross-referencing, and synthesizing the information in the storehouse—in
short, selecting and sorting the appropriate knowledge, past experience, and so on.
Although there is some confusion among scholars as to exactly how and, in par-
ticular, when the encoding takes place, it is useful, if only for instructional purpose,
to think of it as a sequence. Our sender must now choose her codes, and she should
apply at least the same program or questions discussed previously. More will be said
of this critical process of managing meaning in Chapter 3. The sender now transmits
the message that, let’s assume, is mainly oral (along with some critical nonverbals).
Let’s also assume that there is no unusual distraction or noise and that the sensory
abilities of each person are adequate. Since our message concerns love, the situation
itself may be fairly critical, to say nothing of the characteristics of the other person.
Finally (and this whole operation may last but seconds), the message is received
by the other person. The resulting sensations experienced by the receiver are the first
part of human perception; the second part, as discussed previously, is the interpre-
tation of those sensations in this particular situation.
The model suggests that our receiver now decodes the signs, symbols, and lan-
guage of the sender, sorting through his or her storehouse of knowledge and expe-
rience and selecting those meanings that will allow him or her to create a message
concerning love. To the extent that this re-creation is similar to the sender’s intended
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 11

In the Ross Communication Model, the sender chooses items from her storehouse of knowledge and
experience to help her communicate her intended message to the receiver; the receiver, in turn, de-
codes the message using his storehouse of knowledge and exerience.

message, we have communication. This reconstructed idea is then dependent upon

a person’s prior knowledge and experience.
An understanding of how people receive, decode, and assign meaning to mes-
sages is critical to our understanding of communication. The receiver, or perceiver,
makes hypotheses regarding the meaning of the message. He or she then accepts or
rejects the hypotheses on the basis of personal constructs based on prior learning
and experience. More will also be said about this in Chapter 3.
The term feedback in the model requires a moment of important considera-
tion. In engineering, feedback refers to some of the transmitted energy being re-
turned to the source. The automatic pilot used in airplanes is an example of self-
correcting machinery that uses feedback. For speech purposes we may think of
feedback as useful in a self-correcting or adaptive sense. As our transmitted signal
12 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

is “bounced off ” our receiver, it feeds back information that allows us to correct
and refine our signal. A quizzical look, a frown, a yawn, the sound of our own
voice—any of these may cause us to reevaluate and recode our signals. For now,
let’s think of feedback as something that we should make work for us.
As stated earlier, the model shows that communication assigns meaning and
that it works well when the person receiving a message interprets it in the same way
that the sender intends. It is clear that human communication is not simply a
transfer of meaning at all. Earlier in this chapter we broadly define communication
as the use of verbal and nonverbal messages to create ongoing mutual influence.
Based on the four communication models presented we can more accurately define
communication as a process of sorting, selecting, and sending symbols in such a way
as to help a receiver find in his or her own mind a meaning similar to that intended
by the sender. We communicate hoping to influence others to respond as we want
them to. That we seldom have perfectly clear communication, and probably should
not expect it, now seems obvious. This more concrete definition of communica-
tion, in general, lays the foundation for understanding the most common type of
communication used on a daily basis, interpersonal communication.
Interpersonal communication is a distinctive, ongoing, ever changing transactional
form of human communication that involves mutual influence—usually for the pur-
poses of relationship management. This definition will be discussed in more detail
later in the chapter when we talk about the principals of interpersonal
communication.

CONTEXT INTERRELATIONSHIPS
Interpersonal communication is mostly a dyadic or a one person-to-one person in-
teraction. The context of the interaction can range from face-to-face, to telephone,
to text messaging, to email. This kind of basic relating and interacting goes on in
many different types of organizations, groups, settings, and even in the media.

Hierarchy of Contexts
According to Stephen Littlejohn these various contexts all overlap, and they should
be viewed “… as a hierarchy of nested contexts in which the higher level includes
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 13

the lower but adds some additional constraints and qualities.”5 His diagram illus-
trates how interpersonal communication cuts through, or is a diminishing part of,
the larger contexts. (See Figure 1.5.)
Interpersonal communication is clearly a large part of what goes on in small-
group interactions. The diagram that follows (Figure 1.6) suggests that 80 percent
of such contexts may be interpersonal communication. Most small groups are face-
to-face, interactive, oral exchanges.
Organizational contexts are thought to be largely involved with small-group
communication. The pyramidal structure of most organizations is thought to be
one of overlapping or “linking” group memberships. The superior in one group is
a participating subordinate in the next. The structure has been referred to as a
“linking pin” arrangement as diagrammed in Figure 1.7.6
Since interpersonal communication is a large part of group communication, it
is clearly a major part of all organizational contexts. We suggest that it is 50 per-
cent of organizational contexts with some trepidation since organizations vary
widely in their goals, size, importance, and the like. A large part of organizational
communication is quite obviously dependent upon special knowledge in areas such
as planning, organizing, accounting, contracting, and so on. Nevertheless, manag-
ing is basically a process of getting work done through people, and that takes in-
terpersonal communication.
The last context shown in Figure 1.6 is public communication or “relating to
audiences.” A public speech to a large audience is obviously quite different from an

FIGURE 1.5 THE HIERARCHY OF COMMUNICATION CONTEXTS

Mass
Communication

Organizational
Communication Interpersonal
Communication
Small Groups
Communication
14 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

FIGURE 1.6 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXTS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
20% Interpersonal

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
50% Interpersonal

INTERPERSONAL
THEORY AND
PRACTICE
GROUP COMMUNICATION
80% Interpersonal

DYADIC COMMUNICATION
100% Interpersonal

FIGURE 1.7
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 15

intimate, dyadic interaction. However, most of the basic speech communication

processes are involved. Language is still critical (sometimes more critical). Voice is
special; so are all of your nonverbals. Listening (especially if you’re in the audience)
is involved; so are all the problems of messages, attitudes, perception, attraction,
and so on. Audience participation contexts may call for applications of interper-
sonal practice as well as integrations of interpersonal theories and processes. Public-
speaking texts find dyadic communication models valuable instruction devices for
the same kinds of reasons just discussed.

SETTINGS AS CONTEXT
Reacting and interacting must occur within some place, at some level, and in some
context or setting. The place in which a communication, and its ritual, occurs is
important for it affects both the senders and receivers of messages. We may not al-
ways like or approve of certain settings, but sensitive human interaction demands
that we take them into account. We should take the setting into special account
when we evaluate a person’s social adjustment. A “nut” may not be a “nut” when
he or she is out of the special setting you are observing. A berserk football fan may
be calm and collected when we find him or her in church.

Place and Ritual

Communication at any level is often limited by where we are. Some settings may
restrict communication, whereas others may aid it. In addition, settings may have
a ritualistic aspect. Much of our communication is dictated by the place and ritual
alone. Observe the impact of a place of worship, an elevator, a commuter bus, a
400-seat Boeing 747 on communication; study their rituals to see how people
communicatively behave with in each place.
Now let’s illustrate the often awesome impact of place. Visualize an impres-
sive place of worship complete with stained-glass windows, exquisite statues, and
a high arched ceiling. In it we may feel close to our creator. There is a temptation
to whisper. People seem to alter their voices, their language, and their dress to
meet the communication requirements of this powerful setting. The ritual associ-
ated with this setting also dictates much of the verbal as well as the nonverbal
16 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

Some communication settings, such as a wedding, are an important influence on interpersonal communication.

communication. Even an empty place of worship is a powerful communication

setting, and we adjust our signals accordingly.
Ceremonial settings such as weddings, funerals, initiations, and graduations
are important influences on interpersonal communication wherever they are
held. Weddings are held in gardens, living rooms, and woods, as well as in places
of worship. Graduations may take place inside, outside, in a gym, in an audito-
rium, and so on. Part of the influence of such an occasion comes from its obvi-
ous purpose, but much of the influence is also tradition and ritual, which seem
to go beyond the obvious. Human communication in such settings is somehow
different.
Think about the last wedding you attended and consider your total verbal ex-
change. It probably concerned the bride and groom, their families, their apparel,
and the wedding arrangements. Being present at the wedding had a strong impact
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 17

on what you said. The same holds true to an even greater extent at funerals.
However, once you are out of the setting, the controlling aspect of place and ritual
disappears.
Even the dinner hour is a rather formal setting for some families. It is a time
for prayer and thanksgiving and not a time for deep conversation or heated argu-
ment. You can test this idea of setting when you are a dinner guest where you can
very easily break the ritual; and, therefore, much of the communication that that
would have normally taken place might no longer be possible.
Visualize yourself at a football game. We live in a spectator world, often
finding ourselves jammed into a stadium watching our favorite team. In this
interaction context we may find ourselves talking to total strangers, but not
about dress styles, war, or elections. Our communication usually takes the
form of amazement at an impressive play, disgust at the end of a rally, or sec-
ond-guessing the management on some trade or maneuver. Our nonverbal
communication is often affected by the press of the crowd, our empathy with
a goal-line stand, or our ecstasy over a circus catch. Once we leave the setting,
however, the effect of the place and ritual ends. We may no longer even ex-
change pleasantries and observations; the influences of the sports arena setting
are removed, and we usually adjust our interpersonal communication with
strangers accordingly.
The lesson is clear. Time, place, and ritual have a tremendous influence upon
human communication; and we are well advised to take them into account.

Purpose
In some settings the purpose or the agenda is so important that it has a greater im-
pact on interpersonal communication than the place. If the purpose is strictly so-
cial, the political advocate may be poorly received. If a person’s communication
purpose is to obtain reassuring messages from you, all the jokes in the world are
not apt to be received very well. A few of the many general purposes of communi-
cation interactions are discussed below.

SOCIAL Many times we get together for sheer joy, fellowship, and fun.
Perhaps the setting is a party. In this instance we get together primarily to have
18 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

a good time (however, a party could be a disguise for another purpose). After the
party we usually evaluate the time spent in terms of fun. “Did you enjoy your-
self?” “Was it fun?” “Why don’t we get together more often?” “That was a dull
party.” “Those two loud men were arguing about politics.” Party topics are pre-
dictably uncontroversial, such as sports, weather, or current gossip. The commu-
nication pattern is without clear direction or agenda; many discussions may
occur at the same time. If we tire of one subject, person, or group, we may not
have as many communication options or as many people with whom to talk.
However, watch for some ritual even in principally social communication
settings.

VENTILATION Another reason we interact is to unload grievances and gener-

ally express pent-up feelings—to unwind. In this situation we are usually looking
for a sympathetic ear. We are not interested in having our statements and view-
points challenged, at least not critically.
Have you ever been misunderstood by family or friends when your purpose
was really simple ventilation? You’re trying to blow off some steam, but your lis-
tener misinterprets the situation and proceeds to give you some point-by-point ar-
guments on all the gross generalizations you’ve blurted out. All you really wanted
was a quiet, sympathetic listener, and now you’ve committed yourself to an emo-
tional argument you really didn’t need or want. Responsibilities run both ways in
these ventilation situations. Take care when ventilating; hear your friend out to dis-
cover his or her real purpose.

SEEKING HELP AND INFORMATION In the previous category, we were

seeking a listener who did not interfere continually as we complained, vented our
emotions, and otherwise used him or her as a release for accumulated strong feel-
ings. This category leads us to a more specific call for help—a call for a response,
for information, support, and reinforcement. There are many such situations, rang-
ing from the simple request for time, date, or directions to asking a person to as-
sume a more emotionally complex, supportive role. Once again, the why is the in-
fluencing factor. Some call these types of purposes therapeutic in that we are
seeking a cure or answer for a difficulty. It is quite important and sometimes diffi-
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 19

cult for a receiver to really know when someone wishes help and support or when
he or she prefers only a sympathetic ear.
Have you ever asked one of your classmates a simple question, only to receive
a lecture on transcendental hermeneutics? Your classmate may honestly have mis-
understood the intent and scope of your question or may have simply found a vic-
tim on which to try out some new learning! That’s not all bad either; communica-
tion is often a compromise of purposes and intentions.
Sometimes the real help we seek is a nonverbal presence, not talk at all. When
the play is awful, the team has fumbled near the goal line, or you’ve flunked the
exam, you may just prefer silent, miserable company—unless you’re ventilating.
Misery does love company, especially people with the same problem.

BARGAINING Still another purpose that greatly affects interpersonal commu-

nication is bargaining—working out differences together. This purpose is some-
times evident, as with known, honest differences of opinion. However, it may also
operate quite subtly, sometimes by design and sometimes quite by accident. In bar-
gaining, the response to a statement often determines the next response. A state-
ment may contain a specific intent unknown to the receiver. This intent may be
concealed in some code or message intended to have a persuasive effect on the re-
ceiver. Notice the bargaining influence in the communication when you are buy-
ing a used car or a motorcycle. The seller may suggest $5,000 as an asking price.
You are interested in determining just how low in price the seller is really willing to
go. In this special kind of setting there is often a hidden motive and a payoff (which
we expect as part of the game). The setting is sometimes called a game because of
this payoff aspect. Unless you recognize this purpose and adjust accordingly, you
may come off second best in the negotiation without really having played the
game.
Bargaining among unions and employers is a similar communication inter-
change, except that it is much more formal. Most of these bargaining situations are
worked out cooperatively. We usually hear about the few that are deadlocked as if
they were typical.
Sometimes we bargain without knowing it. Asking to use big brother’s car
may really be more bargaining than a simple request for help. If this is so, your
20 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

initial purpose may be to seek information. You may then shift to an expression
of feelings as you attempt to establish common ground. You may next prepare to
move into the bargaining stance. Whatever your line may be, you must be aware
that in this type of context the receiver may not always give you the specific an-
swer you want (that’s part of the game, too). If after several exchanges you sense
that your goal is not likely to be achieved, you may decide to offer more in ex-
change, modify your time requirement, or do whatever is possible to work out
the bargaining together. That bargaining is often unsuccessful is another fact of
life. Most bargaining would probably be more successful if the participants knew
more about the process and recognized a bargaining situation when they were in
one. We will have more to say about interpersonal persuasion later.

EVALUATION Even in giving feedback about something relatively trivial, such

as spelling errors (which would not be trivial in the setting of an English class) or
minor arithmetic mistakes, you may be surprised at how threatening this purpose
and setting is to some people. If you are in a position of giving negative feedback—
such as an umpire, referee, traffic officer, or teacher—and everyone expects this kind
of discipline or feedback from you, it is one thing. When you offer such advice freely
in a different setting and with a less specific purpose, it is quite another thing!
The evaluative or negative-feedback setting is never easy, even for professional
counselors and skilled teachers. When our purpose is to direct negative feedback at
someone else, we must work especially hard at being our best self, our most sensi-
tive self. When you ask for evaluation or feedback, prepare yourself for some blunt
remarks. Most people will be quite honest, but not always objective, and rarely as
kind as you think they should be.
Do not be too eager to evaluate others. The great counselor and psychologist
Carl Rogers was known to say, “The older and wiser I get, the less eager I am to rush
in to fix things.”7 Objectivity is critical to sensitive feedback situations, and so is tact.

THE PSYCHO-ENVIRONMENT AS CONTEXT

A near poverty-stricken family finds happiness, high morale, and a certain amount of
self-realization. How can this be in view of their physical environment? Because a
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 21

poverty-stricken physical environment need not be a poverty-stricken psycho-envi-

ronment, any more than a rich physical environment necessarily leads to a rich and
happy psycho-environment. This is not to deprecate the importance of creature com-
forts and the physical environment, but rather it is to make clear that the psycholog-
ical climate is, in most things, a more critical context than the physical climate.
Psychological climate refers to all of the influences that affect any of the purposes
and settings discussed above. It includes all of the environmental dimensions, both
physical and psychological, and particularly those human aspects of climate variously
described as accepting, understanding, facilitating, and so on. These aspects could also
be negative—that is, strongly judgmental, evaluative, defensive, dogmatic, and the like.
All human communication and interaction take place in some kind of psycho-
logical climate. Our surroundings and our involvement with them may or may not
lead to motivation and better human relations. The attitudes people hold about
their organizations and the style of leadership they encounter (or express) are crit-
ical to the communication climate. The subtlety and importance of appropriate
human interactions and transactions are often lost in a sea of organizational or en-
vironmental requirements.
Elton Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger taught the lessons of the psycho-environ-
ment and human relations years ago. Too few of our organizational leaders, they
argued, were alert to the fact that it is a human social, and not an economic, prob-
lem which they face.8

The attitudes people

hold about their orga-
nizatioins are critical
to the communication
culture.
22 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

It took the Hawthorne studies of the 1930s, starting out in quest of knowledge
about physical environment, to make very clear that it was the human environment
that offered most in terms of motivated effort and moral conscience. The widely
growing industrial unions of the thirties made quick note and quick demand for
not only wage adjustments, but also for human considerations. Today the fringes
are truly misnamed psychologically as well as economically.
Horrendous amounts of pseudosophisticated, naive, and sometimes oppor-
tunistic manipulating of human relations and the work environment have un-
doubtedly slowed the emergence of a unified theory of human relations and
the psycho-environment. In any event, it is now clear that a person’s motiva-
tion depends to a large extent upon how he or she relates to his or her organi-
zational environment and the important people in it—those people and
arrangements that affect a person’s life, attitudes, and perception of the psycho-
logical climate.

Human Relations Theory

It is doubtful that any efforts parallel in human relations impact the studies done
from 1924 to 1932 at the Chicago Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric
Company. Mayo and his Harvard associates did not join the Western Electric team
until 1927. In 1924, Hawthorne, in collaboration with the National Research
Council, initiated a study with the purpose of determining the relationship be-
tween illumination intensity, or lighting, and worker efficiency as measured by pro-
duction or output. The results were to confound the engineers, delight the social
psychologists, and usher in a new age of human relations and involvement.9
The assumption of this early study was that the better the lighting, the better
the production of induction coils. With one group of workers the light intensity
was held constant. With the experimental group the light intensity was varied, first
made higher and then made lower than with the control group. When the lights
went up production went up; when the lights went down production went up! To
confound things even more, in the control group with which the lights remained
constant the production also went up! In near desperation the lights were brought
down even more. It was not until near moonlight that production slipped even a
modicum. Obviously, something more than lighting was operating here. The re-
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 23

searchers did not rule out a relationship between work and light, of course, but
they did become dimly aware of another variable running wild in their experiment.
They labeled it psychological. They then devised an expectation study with light in
which they replaced bulbs of equal, rather than more, wattage. The workers, living
up to expectations, commented favorably on the increased illumination. These
early researchers were disturbed by the extraneous psychological variables and at-
tempted to design a way of eliminating them. They thought they might isolate and
control some of them, such as fatigue, rest periods, equipment, and the like. It was
decided that if a small group of workers could be isolated in a specially partitioned-
off room and asked to be their normal selves, then some of these psychological vari-
ables would be suppressed. Output could finally be correlated to physical condi-
tions. At this point, Mayo and others from the Department of Industrial Research
of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration became involved.
Earlier studies by Mayo in a Philadelphia textile mill had prepared him for assess-
ing the psychological and human variables. He had found that it was not so much
rest periods that helped production, morale, and turnover as it was the workers’ in-
volvement and attention in scheduling the rest periods.
In this special room partially described above, the now famous “Relay
Assembly Room” experiment was started. In the spring of 1927 six women were
chosen as average representative workers of the 100 persons who assembled tele-
phone relays. Moving these six workers into the test room made it possible to ac-
curately tabulate the number of relays produced literally from one moment to an-
other. Records were kept from 1927 to 1932. The plan was to get a normal output
number and then vary payment, rest breaks, days off, and. company lunch and
quitting times to see the effect of each under these controlled conditions. To keep
things scientific, a very attentive observer was also present to maintain records and
counsel with the women.
The results made the dimly emerging lesson of the lighting experiment
much brighter. In brief review of a mountain of data, the following general find-
ings can be reported: when wages were varied production went up; when breaks
were varied production went up; free snacks, production went up; variations in
quitting time, production went up. After eighteen months of this the re-
searchers decided to take away all of these special conditions and go back to the
first day in the special test room—let output return to normal, as it were. No
24 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

one was quite prepared for the result! Production set an all-time high! It was also
found that the usual fatigue curve did not pertain, nor did the one for absen-
teeism. Everything was better. Perhaps this is what Thomas Wolfe meant when
he wrote, “You can’t go home again,” or what Heroclites meant when he said,
“You can’t step in the same river twice.” No one could ever go back to day one;
“Nothing, nothing is the same.”
The research staff saw the light. People had begun to feel important. Stuart
Chase’s interpretation of what happened, first written in 1941, goes a long way to-
ward defining human relations in its very best sense.

What was this X? The research staff pulled themselves together and began looking at it.
They conferred, argued, studied, and presently they found it. It wasn’t in the physical
production end of the factory at all. It was in the girls and their group. By segregating
them into a little world of their own, by asking their help and co-operation, the investi-
gators had given the young women a new sense of their own value. Their whole attitude
changed from that of separate cogs in a machine to that of a congenial team helping the
company solve a significant problem.

They had found stability, a place where they belonged, and work whose pur-
pose they could clearly see. And so they worked faster and better than they ever had
in their lives. The two functions of a factory had joined into one harmonious
whole.10

Psychological Safety
A healthy communication climate might be described as a cohesive context and en-
vironment in which the discussants, through interaction, achieve a mental state of
relative psychological safety and freedom. According to Shepherd, cohesion refers
to the forces that bind members of a group—the degree of closeness and warmth
they feel for one another, their pride as members, their willingness to be frank and
honest in their expressions of ideas and feelings, and their ability to meet the emer-
gencies and crises that may confront them.11
Interaction, in this context, is communication behavior directed toward an-
other person or persons when their reactions or mutual behavior are taken into ac-
count. It pertains directly to our interpersonal responsibilities in communication.
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 25

What is being discussed is obviously a large part of the psychological climate.

If we are faced with bad news, deserved criticism, necessary evaluation, or gener-
ally unhappy feedback, some cold or even defensive psychological climate is per-
haps unavoidable. This is precisely the time when we must be our very best com-
municative selves, or we may make an already difficult psychological climate really
impossible.
“Left lane, Jane. Left lane! Left lane, Jane!! Damn, we make left turns from the
left lane. That’s three bad mistakes.” If you remember your driver training, you
probably recall at least a few bad days during which criticism of your driving be-
havior seemed harsh (to you) or threatening, however necessary it may have been
in the name of highway safety and your own driving skill. The way in which such
criticism is given, as well as taken, is what is known as psychological climate.
If an English professor objectively criticizes a bad essay of yours line by line (as
he or she is paid to do), it is easy to become defensive in a subsequent one-to-one
encounter. Human interaction is, of course, a knife that cuts both ways. Someone
may lack sensitivity as a message sender, but be too sensitive as a receiver. If on a
given day someone is feeling super defensive about race, national origin, or some
other large dimension of personality, his or her communication partner may find
communication very difficult indeed. At this point the receiver has a considerable
communication obligation to avoid being overly sensitive in his or her role as a re-
ceiver and to strive to reestablish a healthier communication climate. It is as if we
must have both thick and thin skins at exactly the same time. We need to develop
a tolerance for conflicting information, beliefs, and perceptions, as well as a general
tolerance for doubt and uncertainty.
The climate and both persons’ assessments of and contribution to it are truly
essential to how each learns, communicates, and grows. A flippant, sexist, or cute
remark is sometimes all it takes to put your foot in your mouth (or worse).
We probably feel less safe psychologically in communication settings pertain-
ing to evaluation than in social conversations or loving relationships. Where there
is good rapport and basic respect for one another, a person may achieve a kind of
psychological freedom, a happy climate in which the person’s status is not unreason-
ably threatened, in which he or she feels accepted as a person, and in which he or
she has the freedom to be wrong and to become involved. Both psychological safety
26 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

and freedom involve being accepted as an individual of some worth in a climate in

which the individual is not persistently evaluated as a person.
When the setting is tense and angry, emotional voices are heard and we are put
to a real communication test. When our feelings are out of sync or out of balance
with our beliefs, we are apt to ruin the psychological climate. Our emotions may
affect the way we think in a given situation or communication episode, but the re-
verse is also true—the way we think affects the way we feel. If we think someone is
going to ridicule or insult us, we are probably going to feel angry or defensive. If
we think our relational partners really intend to threaten the relationship, wouldn’t
we feel fear and apprehension?

COMMUNICATING INTERPERSONALLY
Importance of Interpersonal Communication
We define interpersonal communication as a distinctive, on going, ever changing
transactional form of human communication that involves mutual influence usu-
ally for the purposes of relationship management. The key word here is relation-
ship. Most humans have a desire for long-term, satisfying relationships. You can’t
build and manage relationships without interpersonal communication. As we all
know, communicating in close relationships can be challenging. Just imagine how
much more peaceful and productive your life would be if you could improve your
listening skills, learn to use sensitive and nondefensive language, and learn to accu-
rately place responsibility for feelings in your interactions. Understanding interper-
sonal communication can actually enhance our emotional, psychological, and
physical well-being.
Studies show that communication skills, particularly interpersonal communi-
cation skills, are paramount for employability.12 Without solid interpersonal com-
munication skills you will not only have a hard finding a job in today’s market, you
may also have trouble keeping it. Communication skills are closely linked with
ability to be productive.13
Interpersonal communication skills are also linked with high academic per-
formance. Studies show that students that have the ability to interact with peers
and instructors productively are able to increase their learning experience, are more
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 27

motivated, and find class much more satisfying. All of these things lead to increased
academic performance.14
Another benefit of studying interpersonal communication is that it can help
us become the best person we can be. The process of being the best we can be
is called self-actualization. This idea comes from psychologist Abraham
Maslow.15 In order to become self-actualized we must be able to gain informa-
tion about ourselves. Once we come to know our assets and weaknesses we can
work on enhancing the assets and eliminating the weaknesses. One of the ways
we are able to gain this vital information about ourselves is through interaction
with others.
Regardless of which benefit of interpersonal communication seems most ap-
propriate to your individual situation, it is safe to say that interpersonal communi-
cation is a necessary tool for building a happy and successful life.

ETHICS: RESPONSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS

Lies and Mental Reservations
A communicator is morally responsible for telling the truth and for the social con-
sequences that result if the truth is not told. This critical statement is meant to in-
clude not only our words but all the nonverbals as well. “He tells a lie who has one
thing in his mind and says something else by words or by any signs whatsoever.”
(St. Augustine) To some moral philosophers the natural end of speech is to com-
municate our thoughts, and a lie is evil because it frustrates the very end and pur-
pose of speech.
Being honest and fair to the facts are obvious moral obligations. We must play
by the game rules and obey the law. Using outright lies, manufactured facts, and
“dirty tricks” are clearly unethical. Even here we encounter some problems.16
Prudence is a virtue. Can the ethical person be honest without being unkind? Can
he or she be both tactful and forthright?
Are some broad mental reservations allowed? Yes, say the ethiticians, in the same
way that a defendant pleads not guilty, or a doctor, questioned about professional
secrets, replies “I don’t know.” Yes, they say, because there were fair and sufficient
clues within the special contexts and situations. A courtroom would not allow for
28 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

any kind of mental reservation (a very special context). According to moralists, the
common good is at stake here superceding the private good of the individual.
A strict mental reservation without any clue is a lie in any context. So, too, are
all communications that are grossly unfair to the facts, or so subtle that they give the
receiver no clue about possible alternatives.17 The clue is important, as is the context.
Honest clues protect the receiver’s fundamental right of choice. Even in social
compliance situations there is usually some choice. When choice is minimal, at
least there are some alternatives (the courts when necessary). The ultimate decision
of how to behave, act, interpret, or believe must in some way, however small, be
left to the receiver. That choice must be a viable one.

Special Situations
If moral law permits some concealing of the truth, to what situations does this per-
tain? What are some guidelines? First, some generalizations with wide ethical ac-
ceptance in a democracy are the following:
We have a right to do what is necessary or helpful to preserve our own personal
dignity and independence.
We have a right to keep our private affairs secret.
We should do that which promotes mutual trust among men. (Doctors,
lawyers, and others should not reveal secrets except in extraordinary circumstances
in which the common good demands it.)
All of these generalizations deal with situations in which trust and some kind
of secret put us in a double bind.
Joseph Sullivan, S.J. deals forthrightly with the ethical principles that should
govern the keeping or revealing of secrets.18 We offer them for your consideration.

Definitions
Secret—is a truth which the possessor may (right) or ought (duty) to conceal.

Natural Secret—is a truth, which from its own nature gives the possessor said right
or duty.
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 29

For example: One’s own or one’s neighbor’s private affairs, the revelations of
which, at least in ordinary circumstances, would cause reasonable offense or injury.

Secret of Promise—is a truth, which because of a promise made, the possessor has a
duty and, therefore, a right to conceal.

Secret of Trust—is a truth, which, because of the fact that it was confided to one
by another on the express or tacit agreement that having been communicated for
a serious purpose it be held in trust, the possessor has a duty and right to conceal.
For example: Knowledge communicated to a lawyer or doctor, or even in some
circumstances to a mere friend can be kept secret.

At times permits—i.e., man sometimes has the right to keep a secret.

At times command—i.e., man sometimes has more than a right, he has a duty.

Question: When are these times?

Answer: a) Man has a duty to keep:

1) A natural secret—as long as
a) the truth is not made common property by some one else;
b) he cannot reasonably presume the leave of those concerned, to reveal it;
c) concealing the truth works no serious harm to a community;
d) he is not questioned about the matter by legitimate authority;
e) it can be kept without serious inconvenience to himself or another.
2) A secret of promise as long as a, b, c, d, as above.
a) It can be kept without serious inconvenience to himself or another and,
even at the cost of such inconvenience, if he has expressly promised to do
so.
3) A secret of trust—as long as
a) revelation is not necessary to avert serious and impending harm from
1) the community,
2) the holder of the secret,
30 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

3) a third and innocent party who is endangered by the person who has
confided the secret in another.
4) the one who confided the secret.

The reason why the obligation of keeping a secret, even of promise, ceases in
the circumstances mentioned above is because even when assuming obligations of
a strict contract, no man can reasonably be thought to intend to bind himself in
such circumstances. Cf. approved authors in Moral Theology.
b) Man has a right to keep all secrets
1) in all the above-named cases where he has a duty;
2) in some of the cases mentioned where he has no duty.
Nilsen challenges interpersonal communicators to take into account the spe-
cial circumstances, the intent, the feelings behind questions, and to combine hon-
esty with respect for sensitivities. He goes on to say,

Morally good communications are those which best preserve the integrity of the ego,
contribute to personal growth, and harmonize relationships. These ends are served by
communications, which, in addition to providing the information needed in a given sit-
uation, permit and encourage the expression of thought and feeling, and reveal respect
for the person as a person.19

Culpable Ignorance
The intent of the sender is, of course, critical to an evaluation of the morality
of his or her message. Equally important is the role, or status, of the sender. A
person qualified to serve and serving in a leadership role has special ethical ob-
ligations. We expect our political and religious leaders and our professional
people to be responsible, regardless of intent. A doctor convicted of malprac-
tice rarely intended to do harm. An incompetent teacher may have good inten-
tions. We judge such people harshly and hold them ethically responsible, even
though their intent may have been good. Our laws accommodate this notion
not just for professionals but for political leaders, as well. Senators, congress-
men, and other public figures have less protection from libel and slander than
does the average citizen. (They, of course, do have their protective immunities,
however.)
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 31

All of us have some ethical obligations beyond intent. Many people have been
hurt by those who “meant well.” All of us have some obligation to get our facts
straight before sending messages that might capriciously misinform or injure the
receiver. Moralists call this culpable ignorance—that is, ignorance usually from care-
lessness deserving blame.20
Most often we have an ethical responsibility to rhetorically analyze our re-
ceivers. For one not to care how people are apt to decode a message borders on
immorality. A child may decode a message quite differently from a mature
adult. How a particular person will interpret a particular message is an ethical
consideration.
Let us not forget our ethical responsibilities as receivers.21 As receivers we have
a moral obligation to give fair hearing once we have committed ourselves to some
legitimate interest in the issue. We must make an effort to understand the sender’s
biases and intent. We should show tolerance and work at understanding intent. Fair
hearing replaces force in a free society.
To give fair hearing we must also analyze our own range of acceptance. Are we
really stuck with a “hard” attitude? Is there some latitude in our position? To give
a fair hearing also means allowing the other person some chance to talk. Ethical in-
terpersonal communication doesn’t outlaw aggressive arguing, but it does outlaw
excessive monologue; it does necessitate giving the sender some chance to make
and explain his or her point. Fair hearing also calls for fair fighting. Sandbagging
or setting people up for an obvious embarrassment borders on unethical entrap-
ment. Dragging in every superfluous issue to deliberately confuse is another ques-
tion of ethics. These unfair interpersonal conflict techniques will be discussed in
later chapters. We have a moral obligation to ourselves and the society we represent
to stubbornly protect our own independence and dignity.

SUMMING UP
Interpersonal communication is largely a face-to-face or voice-to-voice thing. It goes
on in all kinds of organizations, groups, and settings. Reacting and interacting always
occur somewhere, at some level, in some context or setting. Some settings restrict
communication while others aid it. Interpersonal communication cuts through all of
32 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

the larger contexts. Some of these are mass, organizational, group, and public com-
munication. Various levels of communication in ascending order are described by
some as intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, and cultural. A model is shown.
The instructional model we have used (Figure 1.4) includes an idea or concept,
selecting and sorting, encoding, transmitting, receiving and decoding, selecting
and sorting, and a reconstructed idea or concept. Feedback is information being re-
turned from receivers, and it is vital to the correction and refining of the signals we
send. Communication is a process of sorting, selecting, and sending symbols in
such a way as to help a receiver find in his or her own mind a meaning intended
by the sender. Current definitions seem to agree that ideas must, in some way, be
shared before communication can exist and that communication should be
thought of as a process—not simply as a transfer of meaning from one mind to an-
other. Communication involves common experience and mutual influence. Real
communication is very difficult if there is not at least some small opportunity for
two-way influence. Whether we know it or not, we communicate hoping to influ-
ence others to respond as we want them to. This process has no beginning and no
end; it is ever changing, dynamic, and mutual.
Much of our communication is dictated by the setting. Time, place, ritual, and
purpose have great influence on communication. Some general purposes for com-
municating are: social, ventilation, seeking help, bargaining, and evaluation.
Motivation depends, in large part, upon how we relate to our psycho-environ-
ment, our organizations, and the important people in them. Human relations the-
ory teaches us that a would-be leader is poorly trained if he or she is unaware of the
informal communications and social units that develop within the environment of
any formal organization. The spirit of such groups should be a communication and
leadership objective.
A healthy communication climate is a cohesive context in which interactants
achieve a state of psychological safety and freedom. The climate and the interac-
tants’ assessment of and contributions to it are essential to how they each learn,
grow, and communicate. Psychological freedom is a climate in which our status is
not unreasonably threatened, in which we feel accepted, and in which we have the
freedom to be wrong and to become involved.
 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION 33

Interpersonal communication has great importance. Good interpersonal com-

munication can heighten our emotional, psychological and physical well being. It
can increase our chances of getting and keeping a job, help individuals to become
better students, and allow us to reach a state of self-actualization or being the best
we can be.
Ethics involves moral responsibility in our interactions with others. A communi-
cator is morally responsible for telling the truth and for the social consequences that
result if the truth is not told. If mental restrictions are involved, fair and sufficient
clues must be present regardless of context. Honest clues protect the receiver’s funda-
mental right of choice. “Morally good communications are those which best preserve
the integrity of the ego, contribute to personal growth, and harmonize relationships.”
22
The intent of the sender is critical to the morality of his or her message. Equally
important is the role or status of the sender. A person qualified to serve and serving
in a leadership role has special ethical obligations. We expect such people to be re-
sponsible regardless of intent. We should show tolerance and an effort at understand-
ing intent. If we are involved at all, we have a moral obligation to give fair hearing.
As senders all of us have some obligation to get our facts straight before encoding
messages that might capriciously misinform or injure the receiver. Moralists call this
culpable ignorance—that is, ignorance from carelessness deserving blame.

NOTES
1 Grace A. de Laguna, Speech: Its Function and Development (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1927), p. 19.
2 Schramm, Wilbur. “How Communication Works” in The Process and Effects of Mass
Communication, ed. W. Schramm (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press 1955), pp. 4-8
3 Harold P. Zelko and Frank E. X. Dance, Business and Professional Speech Communication (New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965, 1978), pp. 6-7.
4 D. C. Barnlund, Interpersonal Communication: Survey and Studies (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1968), p. 10.
5 Stephen W. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication 11 ed. (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company, 2006), p. 204.
6 Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961), p.
104.
34 CHAPTER 1 V INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION

7 Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 21.

8 Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (New York: Macmillan, Inc., 1933).
9 Excellent accounts of these studies may be found in Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an
Industrial Civilization (New York: The Viking Press, 1960); F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J.
Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939);
George C. Homans, “The Western Electric Researches,” chap. 4 in Fatigue of Workers: Its Relation
to Industrial Production, by the Committee on Work in Industry of the National Research Council
(New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1941); Stuart Chase, Men at Work (New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1945).
10 Chase, Men at Work, p. 19. For a scientific analysis see T. N. Whitehead, The Industrial Worker
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938).
11 Clovis R. Shepherd, Small Groups: Some Sociological Perspectives (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing
Co., 1964) p. 26.
12 National Association of Colleges and Employers (2002). Do employers and colleges see eye to eye?
College student development and assessment. http://www.econedlink.org.
13 Coplin, W. (2004). 10 things employers want you to learn in college. Berkley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
14 Myers, S.A., & Bryant, L.E. (2002). Perceived understanding, interaction involvement, and college
student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 19, 146-155.
15 Maslow, A.H. (1954/1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
16 M. Knapp and M. Comadena, “Telling It Like It Isn’t: A Review of Theory and Research on
Deceptive Communications,” Human Communication Research, 5, no. 3 (Spring 1979), 270-85.
17 See J. Jaksa and S. Rhodes, “A ‘Content-ethic’ for Interpersonal Communication,” Michigan Speech
Association Journal, 14, 1979,80-88.
18 J. F. Sullivan, S.J., Special Ethics (Worcester, Mass.: Holy Cross College Press, 1948), pp. 26-27.
19 T. R. Nilsen, Ethics of Speech Communication (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,
1966), p.78.
20 See L. Flynn, “The Aristotelian Basis for the Ethics of Speaking,” The Speech Teacher, VI, no. 3
(September 1957), 179-87. See also R. Johannesen, Ethics and Persuasion (New York: Random
House, 1967), p. 117.
21 See F. Haiman, “Democratic Ethics and the Hidden Persuaders,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, XLN,
no. 4 (December 1958), 385-92. See also Johannesen, Ethics and Persuasion, p. 70.
22 Nilsen, Ethics of Speech Communication, p. 78.