Page 146 - Essentials of Human Communication

The Principles of Conversation 125

are generally supportive and confirming and show that you’re listening and are involved
in the interaction (Kennedy & Camden, 1988), but you can communicate a variety of
messages with these back-channeling cues (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Pearson &
Spitzberg, 1990):
● To indicate agreement or disagreement. A smile, nod of approval, brief comments such as
“right” and “of course,” or a vocalization like “uh-huh” signals agreement. Frowning,
shaking your head, or making comments such as “no” and “never” signal disagreement.
● To indicate degree of involvement. An attentive posture, forward leaning, and focused eye
contact tell the speaker that you’re involved in the conversation. An inattentive posture,
backward leaning, and avoidance of eye contact communicate a lack of involvement.
● To pace the speaker. Ask the speaker to slow down by raising your hand near your ear and
leaning forward or to speed up by continued nodding of your head. Cue the speaker ver-
bally by asking the speaker to slow down or to speed up.
● To ask for clarification. Puzzled facial expressions—perhaps coupled with a forward lean
or direct interjection of “Who?” “When?” or “Where?”—signal your need for clarification.

Interruptions, in contrast to back-channeling cues, are attempts to take over the
role of the speaker. These are not supportive and are often disconfirming. Interruptions
are often interpreted as attempts to change the topic to one that the person knows more
about or to emphasize one’s authority. Interruptions may also be seen as attempts to
assert power and to maintain control. Not surprisingly, research finds that superiors
(bosses and supervisors) and those in positions of authority (police officers and inter-
viewers) interrupt those in inferior positions more than the other way around (Carroll,
1994; Ashcraft, 1998).
Numerous studies have focused on gender differences in interruption behavior. Communication
Research finds that the popular belief that men interrupt more than women is basi- Choice Point
cally accurate. Men interrupt other men and women more than women interrupt. For Dealing with
example, one analysis of 43 published studies on interruptions and gender differences interruptions
showed that men interrupted significantly more than women (Anderson, 1998). In One of your friends repeat-
addition, the more male-like the person’s gender identity—regardless of the person’s edly interrupts you and others and takes the
biological sex—the more likely the person will interrupt (Drass, 1986). Fathers inter- conversation off onto a totally different
rupt their children more than mothers do (Greif, 1980). Some research, however, topic. What are some of the things you might
finds no differences (Stratford, 1998; Crown & Cummins, 1998; Smith-Lovin & say or do to stop this annoying behavior but not
Brody, 1989; Donaldson, 1992). insult your friend? What would be the ideal
situation in which to bring this up? What
Whatever gender differences do exist, however, seem small. More important channel of communication would you use?
than gender in determining who interrupts whom is the specific type of situation;
some situations, such as task-oriented situations, may call for many interruptions;
and others, such as relationship discussions, may call for numerous back-channeling cues
(Anderson, 1998).

The PrinCiPle OF DiAlOgue
Often the term dialogue is used as a synonym for conversation. But dialogue is more than
simple conversation; it’s conversation in which there is genuine two-way interaction (Buber,
1958; Yau-fair Ho, Chan, Peng, & Ng, 2001; McNamee & Gergen, 1999). It’s useful to distin-
guish the ideal dialogic communicator from his or her opposite, the totally monologic
communicator. Of course, no one engages in dialogue at all times, and no one is totally For a somewhat different take
monologic. These descriptions represent extremes, intended only to clarify the differences on achieving conversational effec-
between these types of communication. tiveness and satisfaction, see
“Conversational Coolers and
During a dialogue each person is both speaker and listener, sender and receiver. It’s Warmers” at tcbdevito.blogspot
conversation in which there is deep concern for the other person and for the relationship .com. What is the single most an-
between the two. The objective of dialogue is mutual understanding and empathy. There noying conversational habit you
is respect for the other person, not because of what this person can do or give but simply can think of? What is the single
because this person is a human being and therefore deserves to be treated honestly and most pleasant conversational
sincerely. habit?