1 / 6

Underlying Patterns in Talk about Relationships

Underlying Patterns in Talk about Relationships. Common Metaphors for Relationships (K&V 1.4). Relationships as: Work, journey, game, bond, organism What else? Communication as: Game of Catch (conduit metaphor) Clues for Creating Worlds Undercurrent or Subtext (content vs. relational).

talmai
Download Presentation

Underlying Patterns in Talk about Relationships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Underlying Patterns in Talk about Relationships

  2. Common Metaphors for Relationships (K&V 1.4) • Relationships as: • Work, journey, game, bond, organism • What else? • Communication as: • Game of Catch (conduit metaphor) • Clues for Creating Worlds • Undercurrent or Subtext (content vs. relational)

  3. “Because language has a common surface and private base, it is both very easy and very difficult for people to understand one another” Retzinger, S. (1991). Violent emotions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 10.

  4. What Metaphors Avoid Misconceptions? Consistency – “But that’s not what you said yesterday.” Simple meaning – “You said it so you must have meant it.” Independence – “It wasn’t my fault.” Obvious Causality – “I know why you said that.” Finality – “I admitted it. What more do you want?”

  5. Thoughts about Misunderstandings • Communication is incredibly complex, so misunderstandings are “understandable.” • Interpretations depend on perspectives • (A’s story, B’s story, and perhaps C’s (outsider’s)) • People make strong inferences without knowing that they have. • Seldom get feedback to correct them. • Often perspectives are not in conflict, but irrelevant to each other • Very little evidence of spontaneous, complex perspective taking

  6. More on Misunderstandings • Motivated misunderstandings: Victims and perpetrators have different views of transgressions (severity, temporal bracketing, deliberate/impulsive intentions, cause/result, moral clarity, guilt/blame, relevance to present) • Narratives about harm had fewer references to others’ thoughts than narratives about helping • Some misunderstandings are positive – irreconcilable differences, unpleasant truths, optimism is helpful. • From Sillars, A. L. (1998). (Mis)understanding. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of relationships (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Baumeister, R. F., & Catanese, K. (2001). Victims and perpetrators provide discrepant accounts: Motivated cognitive distortions about interpersonal transgressions. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

More Related