Improving Faulty Communication

According to the psychological model, communication is unsuccessful whenever the meanings intended by the source differ from the meanings interpreted by the receiver. This occurs when the mental sets of source and receiver are so far apart that there is no shared experience; when the source uses a code unfa­miliar to the receiver; when the channel is overloaded or impeded by noise; when there is little or no opportunity for feedback; or when receivers are dis­tracted by competing internal stimuli.

Each of these problems can be solved. The psychological model points out ways to improve communication. It suggests that senders can learn to see things from their receivers’ points of view. Senders can try to encode messages in clear, lively, and appropriate ways. They can use multiple channels to ensure that their message gets across, and they can try to create noise-free environ­ments. They can also build in opportunities for feedback and learn to read re­ceivers’ nonverbal messages.

Receivers too can do things to improve communication. They can prepare themselves for a difficult message by studying the subject ahead of time. They can try to understand “where the speaker is coming from” and anticipate argu­ments. They can improve their listening skills, and they can ask questions and check their understanding. All of these methods of improving communication are implicit in the model in Figure 2.1.

Criticizing the Psychological Perspective

Although the psychological model is by far the most popular view of communi­cation, it poses some problems, which arise from the assumptions the psycho­logical perspective makes about human behavior.

First, the psychological model locates communication in the psychological processes of individuals, ignoring almost totally the social context in which communication occurs, as well as the shared roles and rules that govern mes­sage construction.

Second, in incorporating the ideas of channel and noise, the psychological model is mechanistic. It treats messages as though they are physical objects that can be sent from one place to another. Noise is treated not as a message, but as a separate entity that “attacks” messages. The model also assumes that it is possible not to communicate, that communication can break down.

Finally, the psychological model implies that successful communication involves a “meeting of the minds.” The model suggests that communication succeeds to the extent that the sender transfers what is in his or her mind to the mind of the receiver, thereby implying that good communication is more likely to occur between people who have the same ideas than between those who have different ideas. This raises some important questions: Is it possible to transfer content from one mind to another? Is accuracy the only value we should place on communication? Is it always a good idea to seek out people who are similar rather than different? Some critics believe the psychological model diminishes the importance of creativity.

Communication as World Building

The social constructionist perspective takes a very different view of communication. In this view com­munication becomes a means of world building. Figure 2.2 illustrates an example of a social con­structionist model. According to this model, com­munication is not something that goes on between individuals; instead, communication is something that surrounds people and holds their world together. Through communication, social groups create collective ideas of themselves, of one another, and of the world they inhabit.

Figure 2.1 – The Social Con­structionist Model

Elements of a Social Constructionist Model

According to the social constructionist model, communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective rep­resentations of reality. The model specifies four of these cultural tools: languages, or symbolic codes; the ways we’ve been taught to process information, or cognitive customs; the beliefs, attitudes, and values that make up our cultural tra­ditions; and the sets of roles and rules that guide our actions. These tools shape the ways we experience and talk about our world.

The social constructionist perspective maintains that we never experience the world directly. Rather, we take those parts of it that our culture makes signif­icant, process them in culturally recognized ways, connect them to other “facts” that we know, and respond to them in ways our culture considers significant. According to this perspective, we construct our world through communication.

This perspective points out that most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than through direct experience. If everyone around us talks about the world in a certain way, we are likely to think of the world in that way and fail to question whether we are seeing things accurately. Thus, when we later encounter people who communicate in different ways, we will have problems during interaction.

Let’s take an example. Eric has been with his company for thirty years and has five more to go until retirement. When he first started working, there were very few women in managerial positions, but now he finds himself work­ing with many women managers. Eric thinks of himself as fair-minded and easygoing. He has nothing against the fact that “girls” are now moving up in the company, but he does finds it hard to understand why they get so upset over “nothing.” When he calls his female secretary “Honey,” (which he’s done for twenty years), he doesn’t understand the prickly reaction of his new colleague Cindy. After all, he’s just trying to be nice. It’s the way he always talks to women.

Cindy is fresh out of business school and eager to make her way in the pro­fessional world. She is appalled by Eric’s behavior. When she hears the way he talks to his secretary, she feels embarrassed and demeaned herself. Furthermore, when Eric treats Cindy like an idiot by explaining everything to her as though she were a child, her blood boils. Cindy has come of age in a time when discussions of feminism and sexism are common. She’s sensitive to issues Eric doesn’t even notice.

Eric’s attempts to communicate with Judy fail because the two colleagues don’t share collective representations of reality. When Eric was growing up, no one talked about sexism and sexual harassment, so for him these concepts have limited meaning. His views of male/female roles used to work, but now they are outmoded. As a result he says things that are completely inappropriate in a modem office. In a very real way, Eric and Cindy live in two completely different worlds.