Who are you? Have you ever sat around thinking about how you fit into the larger universe? Manford Kuhn devised a straightforward exercise to address the heart of this question.^[1] Take out a piece of paper and number 1 to 20 (or use the worksheet in the workbook). For each number, answer the question “Who Am I?” using a complete sentence. Results from this activity reveal five distinct categories about an individual: the social group to which an individual belongs, ideological beliefs, personal interests, personal ambitions, and self-evaluations. If you completed the Twenty-Item Test, take a moment to identify your list using this scheme. All of these five categories are happening at what is called the intrapersonal level. Intrapersonal refers to something that exists or occurs within an individual’s self or mind. This chapter focuses on understanding intrapersonal processes and their relationship to communication.

Larry Barker and Gordon Wiseman are credited with one of the earliest definitions of the term “intrapersonal communication” in the field of communication. Barker and Wiseman defined intrapersonal communication as “the creating, functioning, and evaluating of symbolic processes which operate primarily within oneself.”^[2] The researchers go on to explain that intrapersonal communication exists on a continuum from thinking and reflecting (more internal) to talking aloud or writing a note to oneself (more external).

More recently, Samuel Riccillo defined intrapersonal communication as a “process involving the activity of the individual biological organism’s capacity to coordinate and organize complex actions of an intentional nature… For the human organism, such complex interactions are anchored in the signaling processes known as symbolic language.”^[3] Both the Barker and Wiseman and the Riccillo definitions represent two ends of the spectrum regarding the idea of intrapersonal communication. For our purposes in this book, we define intrapersonal communication as something of a hybrid between these two definitions. Intrapersonal communication refers to communication phenomena that exist within or occur because of an individual’s self or mind. Under this definition, we can examine Barker and Wiseman’s notions of both ends of their intrapersonal communication continuum while also realizing that Riccillo’s notions of biology (e.g., personality and communication traits) are equally important.

Who Are You?

Learning Objectives

1. Identify and define the concept of perception in interpersonal communication.
2. Describe the three stages of the perception process: attending, organizing, and interpreting.
3. Explain how personal factors (e.g., experience, emotions) influence perception.
4. Recognize how perception impacts interpersonal communication and potential misunderstandings.
5. Apply understanding of perception to interpret real-world communication scenarios.

In the first part of this chapter, we mentioned Manford Kuhn’s “Who Am I?” exercise for understanding ourselves. Many of the items typically listed by individuals completing this exercise can be categorized under the areas of self-concept and self-esteem. In this section, we’re going to examine both concepts.

Self-Concept

According to Roy F. Baumeister (1999), self-concept implies “the individual’s belief about himself or herself, including the person’s attributes and who and what the self is.”^[4] An attribute is a characteristic, feature, or quality or inherent part of a person, group, or thing. In 1968, social psychologist Norman Anderson compiled a list of 555 personal attributes.^[5] He had research participants rate the 555 attributes from most desirable to least desirable. The top ten most desirable characteristics were:

1. Sincere
2. Honest
3. Understanding
4. Loyal
5. Truthful
6. Trustworthy
7. Intelligent
8. Dependable
9. Open-Minded
10. Thoughtful

Conversely, the top ten least desirable attributes were:

1. Liar
2. Phony
3. Mean
4. Cruel
5. Dishonest
6. Untruthful
7. Obnoxious
8. Malicious
9. Dishonorable
10. Deceitful

When reviewing this list, do you agree with the rankings from 1968? In a more recent study, conducted by Jesse Chandler using an expanded list of 1,042 attributes,^[6] the following pattern emerged for the top 10 most positively viewed attributes:

1. Honest
2. Likable
3. Compassionate
4. Respectful
5. Kindly
6. Sincere
7. Trustworthy
8. Ethical
9. Good-Natured
10. Honorable

And here is the updated list for the top 10 most negatively viewed attributes:

1. Pedophiliac
2. Homicidal
3. Evil-Doer
4. Abusive
5. Evil-Minded
6. Nazi
7. Mugger
8. Asswipe
9. Untrustworthy
10. Hitlerish

Some changes in both lists represent changing times and the addition of the new terms by Chandler. For example, the terms “sincere,” “honest,” and “trustworthy” were essential attributes for both the 1968 and 2018 studies. Conversely, none of the negative attributes remained the same from 1968 to 2018. The negative attributes, mostly, represent more modern sensibilities about personal attributes.

The Three Selves

Carl Rogers, a distinguished psychologist in the humanistic approach to psychology, believed that an individual’s self-concept is made of three distinct things: self-image, self-worth, and ideal-self.^[7]

Self-Image

An individual’s self-image is a view that they have of themselves. If we go back and look at the attributes that we’ve listed in this section, think about these as laundry lists of possibilities that impact your view of yourself. For example, you may view yourself as ethical, trustworthy, honest, and loyal, but you may also realize that sometimes you are also obnoxious and mean. For a positive self-image, we will have more positive attributes than negative ones. However, it’s also possible that one negative attribute may overshadow the positive attributes, which is why we also need to be aware of our perceptions of our self-worth.

Self-Worth

Self-worth is the value that you place on yourself. Self-worth is the degree to which you see yourself as a good person who deserves to be valued and respected. Unfortunately, many people judge their self-worth based on arbitrary measuring sticks like physical appearance, net worth, social circle/clique, career, grades, achievements, age, relationship status, likes on Facebook, social media followers, etc.… Interested in seeing how you view your self-worth? Take a minute to complete the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale.^[8] According to Courtney Ackerman, there are four things you can do to help improve your self-worth:^[9]

1. You no longer need to please other people.
2. No matter what people do or say, and regardless of what happens outside of you, you alone control how you feel about yourself.
3. You have the power to respond to events and circumstances based on your internal sources, resources, and resourcefulness, which are a reflection of your true value.
4. Your value comes from inside, from an internal measure that you’ve set for yourself.

Ideal-Self

The final characteristic of Rogers’ three parts to self-concept is the ideal-self.^[10] The ideal-self is the version of yourself that you would like to be, which is created through our life experiences, cultural demands, and expectations of others. The real-self, on the other hand, is the person you are. The ideal-self is perfect, flawless, and, ultimately, completely unrealistic. When an individual’s real-self and ideal-self are not remotely similar, someone needs to think through if that idealized version of one’s self is attainable. It’s also important to know that our ideal-self is continuously evolving. How many of us wanted to be firefighters, police officers, or astronauts as kids? Some of you may still want to be one of these, but most of us have had our ideal-self evolve.

Three Self’s Working Together

Now that we’ve looked at the three parts of Carl Rogers’ theory of self-concept, let’s discuss how they all work together to create one’s self-concept. Rogers’ theory of self-concept also examines a concept we discussed in Chapter 2, specifically Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Specifically, the idea of self-actualization. In Rogers’ view, self-actualization cannot happen when an individual’s self-image, self-worth, and ideal-self have no overlap.

As you can see in Figure 3.1, on the left side, you have the three parts of self-concept as very distinct in this individual, which is why it’s called incongruent, or the three are not compatible with each other. In this case, someone’s self-image and ideal-self may have nothing in common, and this person views themselves as having no self-worth. When someone has this type of incongruence, they are likely to exhibit other psychological problems. On the other hand, when someone’s self-image, ideal-self, and self-worth overlap, that person is congruent because the three parts of self-concept overlap and are compatible with each other. The more this overlap grows, the greater the likelihood someone will be able to self-actualize. Rogers believed that self-actualization was an important part of self-concept because until a person self-actualizes, they will be out of balance with how they relate to the world and with others.

The “Looking-Glass” Self

In 1902, Charles Horton Cooley wrote Human Nature and the Social Order. In this book, Cooley introduced a concept called the looking-glass self: “Each to each a looking-glass / Reflects the other that doth pass”^[11] Although the term “looking-glass” isn’t used very often in today’s modern tongue, it means a mirror. Cooley argues that when we look in a mirror, we also think about how others view us and the judgments they make about us. Cooley ultimately posed three postulates:

1. Actors learn about themselves in every situation by exercising their imagination to reflect on their social performance.
2. Actors next imagine what those others must think of them. Actors imagine others’ evaluations of their performance.
3. The actor experiences an affective reaction to the imagined evaluation of the other.^[12]

In Figure 3.2, we see an illustration of this basic idea. You have a figure standing before four glass panes. In the left-most mirror, the figure has devil horns; in the second, a pasted-on fake smile; in the third, a tie; and the last one, a halo. Maybe the figure’s ex sees the devil, his friends and family think the figure is always happy, and the figure’s coworkers see a professional. Last, maybe the figure’s parents/guardians see their little angel. Along with each of these ideas, there are inherent judgments. And, not all of these judgments are necessarily accurate, but we still come to understand and know ourselves based on our perceptions of these judgments.

Ultimately, our self-image is shaped through our interactions with others, but only through the mediation of our minds. Because we perceive that others are judging us, we also shape our façade to conform to that perception. For example, if you work in the customer service industry, you may often feel that you are expected to smile. Since you want to be viewed positively, you plaster on a fake smile all the time, no matter what is going on in your personal life. Others may view you as a happy-go-lucky person because you’re always in a good mood.

Thankfully, we don’t do this all the time, or we would drive ourselves crazy. Instead, there are certain people in our lives whose judgments we worry about more than others. Imagine you are working in a new job. You respect your new boss, and you want to gain their respect in return. Currently, you believe your boss doesn’t think you’re a good fit for the organization because you are not serious enough about your job. If you perceive your boss will like you more if you are a more serious worker, then you will alter your behavior to be more in line with what your boss sees as “serious.” In this situation, your boss didn’t come out and say that you were not a serious worker, but we perceived the boss’ perception of us and her/his/their judgment of that perception of us and altered our behavior to be seen in a better light.

Self-Esteem

One of the most commonly discussed concepts in intrapersonal communication is an individual’s self-esteem. There are numerous books in both academic and non-academic circles that address this idea.

Defining Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is an individual’s subjective evaluation of their abilities and limitations. Let’s break down this definition into sizable chunks.

Subjective Evaluation

The definition states that someone’s self-esteem is an “individual’s subjective evaluation.” The word “subjective” emphasizes that self-esteem is based on an individual’s emotions and opinions, rather than on facts. For example, many people suffer from the impostor syndrome, where they doubt their accomplishments, knowledge, and skills, living in fear of being exposed as a fraud. These individuals have a constant fear that people will discover they are “not who they say they are.” Research in this area suggests that these fears of “being found out” are not grounded in any factual or evidentiary basis. Instead, these individuals’ emotions and opinions of themselves are fueled by incongruent self-concepts. Types of people who suffer from impostor syndrome include physicians, CEOs, academics, celebrities, artists, and pretty much any other category. Again, it’s important to remember that these perceptions are subjective and not based on any objective sense of reality. Imagine a physician who has gone through four years of college, four years of medical school, three years of residency, and another four years of specialization training, only to worry that someone will find out that they aren’t that smart after all. There’s no objective basis for this perception; it’s completely subjective and contradicts the facts.

Besides the word “subjective,” we also use the word “evaluation” in the definition of self-esteem. By evaluation, we mean a determination or judgment about the quality, importance, or value of something. We evaluate a ton of different things daily:

1. We evaluate how we interact with others.
2. We evaluate the work we complete.
3. We also evaluate ourselves and our specific abilities and limitations.

Our lives are filled with constant evaluations.

Abilities

When we discuss our abilities, we are referring to the acquired or natural capacity for specific talents, skills, or proficiencies that facilitate achievement or accomplishment. First, someone’s abilities can be inherent (natural) or they can be learned (acquired). For example, if someone is 6’6”, has excellent reflexes, and has a good sense of space, they may find that they have a natural ability to play basketball that someone who is 4’6”, has poor reflex speed, and has no sense of space simply does not have. That’s not to say that both people cannot play basketball, but they will both have different ability levels. They can both play basketball because they can learn skills necessary to play basketball: shooting the ball, dribbling, rules of the game, etc. In a case like basketball, professional-level players need to have a combination of both natural and acquired abilities.

We break abilities into two different categories: talent or skills to help distinguish what we are discussing. First, talent is usually more of an inherent or natural capacity. For example, someone may appear to be the ideal basketball player physically, but they may have zero talent for the game. Sometimes we refer to talent as the “it factor” because it’s challenging to pinpoint why some individuals possess it and others don’t. Second, skills refer to an individual’s use of knowledge or physical being to accomplish a specific task. We often think of skills in terms of the things we learn to do. For example, most people can learn to swim or ride a bike. Learning this may take some time, but we can develop the skills necessary to stay afloat in the water or to achieve balance and pedal a bike.

The last part of the definition of abilities is the importance of achievement and accomplishment. Just because someone has learned the skills to do something does not mean that they can accomplish the task. Think back to when you first learned to ride a bicycle (or another task). Most of us tried and failed several times before we pedaled on our own without falling over. The first time you got on the bicycle and fell over, you didn’t have the ability to ride a bike. You may have had a general understanding of how it worked, but there’s often a massive chasm between knowing how something is done and then actually achieving or accomplishing it. As such, when we discuss abilities, we emphasize the importance of successful completion.

Limitations

Besides one’s abilities, it’s always important to recognize that we all have limitations. In the words of my podiatrist, I will never be a runner because of the shape of my arch. Whether I like it or not, my foot’s physical structure will not allow me to be an effective runner. Thankfully, this was never something I wanted to be. I didn’t sit up all night as a child dreaming of running a marathon one day. Here, I have a natural limitation, but it doesn’t negatively affect me because I didn’t evaluate running positively for myself. Growing up, I took years of piano lessons, but to be honest, I was never very good at it. I have short, stubby fingers, so reaching notes on a piano that are far away is just hard for me. To this day, I wish I were a talented piano player. I am disappointed that I couldn’t have been a better piano player. Now, does this limitation cripple me? No.

We all have limitations in what we can and cannot do. When it comes to your self-esteem, it’s about how you evaluate those limitations. Do you realize your limitations, and they don’t bother you? Or do your limitations prevent you from being happy with yourself? In understanding limitations, it’s essential to recognize the limitations that we can change and those that we cannot. One problem that many people face when it comes to limitations is that they struggle to differentiate between the various limitations. If I had wanted to be a runner growing up and then suddenly found out that my dream wasn’t possible because of my feet, then I could go through the rest of my life disappointed and depressed that I’m not a runner. Even worse, I could try to force myself into being a runner and cause long-term damage to my body.

Self-Esteem and Communication

By this point, you may be wondering about the importance of self-esteem in interpersonal communication. Self-esteem and communication have a reciprocal relationship (as depicted in Figure 3.3). Our communication with others affects our self-esteem, and our self-esteem, in turn, impacts our communication with others. As such, our self-esteem and communication are constantly transforming one another.

As such, interpersonal communication and self-esteem cannot be separated. Now, interpersonal communication is not the only factor that impacts self-esteem, but interpersonal interactions are one of the most important tools we have in developing ourselves.

Mindfulness Activity

One of the beautiful aspects of mindfulness is that it has a positive impact on someone’s self-esteem.^[13] people who are higher in mindfulness may report higher self-esteem because of the central tenet of non-judgment. Individuals with low self-esteem frequently report highly negative views of themselves and their life experiences. These negative judgments can wear someone down.

Christopher Pepping, Analise O’Donovan, and Penelope J. Davis believe that mindfulness practice can help improve one’s self-esteem for four reasons:^[14]

• Labeling internal experiences with words, which might prevent people from getting consumed by self-critical thoughts and emotions;
• Bringing a non-judgmental attitude toward thoughts and emotions, which could help individuals have a neutral, accepting attitude toward the self;
• Sustaining attention on the present moment, which could help people avoid becoming caught up in self-critical thoughts that relate to events from the past or future;
• Letting thoughts and emotions enter and leave awareness without reacting to them.^[15]

For this exercise, think about a recent situation where you engaged in self-critical thoughts.

1. What types of phrases ran through your head? Would you have said these to a friend? If not, why do you say them to yourself?
2. What does the negative voice in your head sound like? Is this voice someone you want to listen to? Why?
3. Did you try temporarily distracting yourself to see if the critical thoughts would go away (e.g., mindfulness meditation, coloring, exercise, etc.)? If yes, how did that help? If not, why?
4. Did you examine the evidence? What proof did you have that the self-critical thought was true?
5. Was this a case of a desire to improve yourself or a case of non-compassion toward yourself?

Self-Compassion

Some researchers have argued that self–esteem as the primary measure of someone’s psychological health may not be wise because it stems from comparisons with others and judgments. As such, Kristy Neff has argued for the use of the term self-compassion.^[16]

Self-Compassion stems out of the larger discussion of compassion. Compassion then is about the sympathetic consciousness for someone who is suffering or unfortunate. Self-compassion “involves being touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it, generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself with kindness. Self-compassion also involves offering non-judgmental understanding to one’s pain, inadequacies and failures, so that one’s experience is seen as part of the larger human experience.”^[17] Neff argues that self-compassion can be broken down into three distinct categories: self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness (Figure 3.4).

Self-compassion isn’t just an empty concept that hasn’t been tested in real-life circumstances. If you’ve ever heard of or watched Dance Moms, you are aware of the competitive world of dancing and the controversial coaching style of Abbey Lee Miller. Perhaps at some point in your life you participated in or currently you participate in competitive sports. Coaches have different styles with some taking a supportive approach and others taking an approach that involves yelling, being demanding, and harsh criticism. Researchers have found that high performing participants in the world of dance, sports and music are not necessarily aware of self-compassion, but when taught about self-compassion they agree that balancing self-compassion strategies with self-criticism is important. Athletes also believe that they need special training from their coach or a specialist to develop self-compassion skills to practice during challenging moments when self-criticism is particularly likely to occur. ^[18]

Self-Kindness

Humans have a really bad habit of beating ourselves up. As the saying goes, we are often our own worst enemies. Self-kindness is simply extending the same level of care and understanding to ourselves as we would to others. Instead of being harsh and judgmental, we are encouraging and supportive. Instead of being critical, we are empathic toward ourselves. Now, this doesn’t mean that we just ignore our faults and become narcissistic (excessive interest in oneself), but rather we realistically evaluate ourselves as we discussed in the Mindfulness Exercise earlier.

Common Humanity

The second factor of self-compassion is common humanity, or “seeing one’s experiences as part of the larger human experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating.”^[19] As Kristen Naff and Christopher Germer realize, we’re all flawed works in progress.^[20] No one is perfect. No one is ever perfect. We all make mistakes (some big, some small). We’re also all going to experience pain and suffering in our lives. Being self-compassionate means approaching this pain and suffering with an open mind, seeing it for what it is: a natural part of being human. “The pain I feel in difficult times is the same pain you feel in difficult times. The circumstances are different, the degree of pain is different, but the basic experience of human suffering is the same.”^[21]

Mindfulness

The final factor of self-compassion is mindfulness. Although Naff defines mindfulness in the same terms we’ve been discussing in this text, she specifically addresses mindfulness as a factor in pain, defining it, with regard to self-compassion, as “holding one’s painful thoughts and feelings in balanced awareness rather than over-identifying with them.”^[22] Essentially, Naff argues that mindfulness is an essential part of self-compassion because we must recognize and acknowledge when we’re suffering so we can respond with compassion to ourselves.

Don’t Feed the Vulture

One area that we know can hurt someone’s self-esteem is what Sidney Simon calls “vulture statements.” According to Simon,

Vulture (‘vul-cher) noun. 1: any of various large birds of prey that are related to the haws, eagles and falcons, but with the head usually naked of feathers and that subsist chiefly or entirely on dead flesh.^[23]

Unfortunately, all of us have vultures circling our heads or just sitting on our shoulders. In Figure 3.5, we see a young woman feeding an apple to her vulture. This apple represents all of the negative things we say about ourselves during a day. Many of us spend our entire days feeding our vultures with self-deprecating, negative thoughts and statements. Admittedly, these negative thoughts “come from only one place. They grow out of other people’s criticisms, from the negative responses to what we do and say, and the way we act.”^[24] We have the choice to either let these thoughts consume us or fight them. According to Virginia Richmond, Jason Wrench, and Joan Gorham, the following are characteristic statements that vultures wait to hear so they can feed (see also Figure 3.6):

• Oh boy, do I look awful today; I look like I’ve been up all night.
• Oh, this is going to be an awful day.
• I’ve already messed up. I left my students’ graded exams at home.
• Boy, I should never have gotten out of bed this morning.
• Gee whiz. I did an awful job of teaching that unit.
• Why can’t I do certain things as well as Mr. Smith next door?
• Why am I always so dumb?
• I can’t believe I’m a teacher; why, I have the mentality of a worm.
• I don’t know why I ever thought I could teach.
• I can’t get anything right.
• Good grief, what am I doing here? Why didn’t I select any easy job?
• I am going nowhere, doing nothing; I am a failure at teaching.
• In fact, I am a failure in most things I attempt.^[25]

Do any of these vulture statements sound familiar to you? If you’re like us, I’m sure they do. Part of self-compassion is learning to recognize these vulture statements when they appear in our minds and evaluate them critically. Ben Martin proposes four ways to challenge vulture statements (negative self-talk):

1. Reality testing
   • What is my evidence for and against my thinking?
   • Are my thoughts factual, or are they just my interpretations?
   • Am I jumping to negative conclusions?
   • How can I find out if my thoughts are actually true?
2. Look for alternative explanations
   • Are there any other ways that I could look at this situation?
   • What else could this mean?
   • If I were being positive, how would I perceive this situation?
3. Putting it in perspective
   • Is this situation as bad as I am making out to be?
   • What is the worst thing that could happen? How likely is it?
   • What is the best thing that could happen?
   • What is most likely to happen?
   • Is there anything good about this situation?
   • Will this matter in five years?
4. Using goal-directed thinking
   • Is thinking this way helping me to feel good or to achieve my goals?
   • What can I do that will help me solve the problem?
   • Is there something I can learn from this situation, to help me do it better next time?^[26]

So, the next time those vultures circle you, check that negative self-talk. When we can stop these patterns of negativity toward ourselves and practice self-compassion, we can begin to pluck the feathers of those vultures. The more we treat ourselves with self-compassion and work against those vulture statements, the smaller and smaller those vultures get. Our vultures may never die, but we can make them much, much smaller.

Research Spotlight

In 2018, Laura Umphrey and John Sherblom examined the relationship between social communication competence, self-compassion, and hope. The goal of the study was to see if someone’s social communication competence could predict their ability to engage in self-compassion. Ultimately, the researchers found individuals who engaged in socially competent communication behaviors were more likely to engage in self-compassion, which “suggests that a person who can learn to speak with others competently, initiate conversations, engage others in social interaction, and be more outgoing, while managing verbal behavior and social roles, may also experience greater personal self-compassion” (p. 29).

Umphrey, L. R., & Sherblom, J. C. (2018). The constitutive relationship of social communication competence to self-compassion and hope. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1361395

Key Takeaways

• Perception is the process through which individuals select, organize, and interpret sensory information to create a meaningful picture of the world. In interpersonal communication, perception shapes how we understand others and how we respond in conversations. Our perceptions act as filters, influencing the way we receive and interpret messages.
• The perception process includes three stages: attending (focusing on specific stimuli), organizing (categorizing and structuring information), and interpreting (assigning meaning based on context and prior experience). Together, these stages explain how we make sense of the people and events around us during communication.
• Personal experiences, emotions, cultural background, and psychological states influence how we perceive others. For example, past trauma may lead someone to interpret neutral comments as hostile, while someone in a positive emotional state may perceive ambiguous feedback more favorably. These internal filters shape the accuracy and tone of our interpersonal communication.
• Because perception is subjective, it can lead to misunderstandings in communication. Two people may interpret the same message differently, based on their individual internal filters and experiences. Recognizing that everyone views interactions through their own unique lens is critical to improving clarity, empathy, and effectiveness in communication.
• When analyzing real-world communication, applying knowledge of perception allows us to understand why people behave and respond as they do. By considering others’ perspectives and perceptual influences, we can better navigate conflict, build stronger relationships, and reduce bias in our interactions.

Exercises

• Pull out a piece of paper and conduct the “Who Am I?” exercise created by Manford Kuhn. Once you have completed the exercise, categorize your list using Kuhn’s five distinct categories about an individual: social group an individual belongs to, ideological beliefs, personal interests, personal ambitions, and self-evaluations. After categorizing your list, ask yourself what your list says about your self-concept, self-image, self-esteem, and self-respect.
• Complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/psych/psychsci/media/rosenberg.htm). After receiving your results, do you agree with them? Why or why not? Why do you think you scored the way you did on the measure?

Personality and Perception in Intrapersonal Communication

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between personality and temperament by defining each concept and explaining their key differences.
2. Identify the four common four-type temperament models found in research and pop culture.
3. Classify traits as cognitive dispositions or personal-social dispositions.
4. Describe how genetic and environmental factors influence communication traits.
5. Explain how specific dispositions (e.g., emotional intelligence, empathy, self-monitoring) affect interpersonal communication.

After the previous discussions of self-concept, self-image, and self-esteem, it should be clear that the statements and judgments of others, as well as your view of yourself, can impact your communication with others. Additional factors, such as your personality and perception, also influence communication. Let us next examine these factors and their influence on communication.

Personality

Personality is defined as the combination of traits or qualities—such as behavior, emotional stability, and mental attributes—that make a person unique. Before going further, let’s quickly examine some of the research related to personality. John Daly categorizes personality into four general categories: cognitive dispositions, personal-social dispositions, communicative dispositions, and relational dispositions.^[27] Before we delve into these four categories of personality, let’s take a quick look at two common themes in this area of research: nature or nurture and temperament.

Nature or Nurture

One of the oldest debates in personality research is whether a specific behavior or thought process occurs within an individual due to their nature (genetics) or nurture (the way they were raised). The first person to investigate this phenomenon was Sir Francis Galton in the 1870s.^[28] In 1875, Galton sought out twins and their families to learn more about similarities and differences. As a whole, Galton found that there were more similarities than differences: “There is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails enormously over nurture when the differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank of society and in the same country.”^[29] However, Galton’s twin participants had been raised together, so parsing out nature and nurture (despite Galton’s attempts) wasn’t completely possible. Although Galton’s anecdotes provided some interesting stories, that’s all they amounted to.

Minnesota Twins Raised Apart

So, how does one determine if something is ultimately nature or nurture? The next breakthrough in this line of research started in the late 1970s when Thomas J. Bouchard and his colleagues at Minnesota State University began studying twins who were raised separately.^[30] This research started when a pair of twins, Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, were featured in an article on February 19, 1979, in the Lima News in Lima, Ohio.^[31] Jim and Jim were placed in an adoption agency and separated from each other at four weeks of age. They grew up just 40 miles away from each other, but they never knew the other one existed. Jess and Sarah Springer and Ernest and Lucille Lewis were looking to adopt, and both sets of parents were told that their Jim had been a twin, but they were also told that his twin had died. Many adoption agencies believed that placing twins with couples was difficult, so this practice of separating twins at birth was an inside practice that the adoptive parents knew nothing about. Jim Lewis’ mother had found out that Jim’s twin was still alive when he was a toddler, so Jim Lewis knew he had a twin but didn’t seek him out until he was 39 years old. Jim Springer learned that he had been a twin when he was eight years old, but he believed the original narrative that his twin had died.

Jim Springer was pretty shocked when he received a telephone message with his twin’s contact information out of nowhere one day. The February 19^th article in the Lima News was initially supposed to be a profile piece on one of the Springers’ brothers. Still, the reporter covering the wedding found Lewis and Springer’s tale fascinating. The reporter found several striking similarities between the twins:^[32]

• Their favorite subject in school was math
• Both hated spelling in school
• Their favorite vacation spot was Pas Grille Beach in Florida
• Both had previously been in law enforcement
• They both enjoyed carpentry as a hobby
• Both were married to women named Betty
• Both were divorced from women named Linda
• Both had a dog named “Toy”
• Both started suffering from tension headaches when they were 18
• Even their sons’ names were oddly similar (James Alan and James Allan)

This sensationalist story caught the attention of Bouchard because it provided an opportunity for him and his colleagues to study the influence of rearing on twins in a way that wasn’t possible when studying twins who were raised together.

Over the next decade, Bouchard and his team of researchers would seek and interview over 100 different pairs of twins or sets of triplets who had been raised apart.^[33] The researchers compared those twins to twins who were reared together. Overall, they found more similarities between the two twin groups than differences. This set of studies is one of many that have been conducted using twins over the years to help us understand the interrelationship between rearing and genetics.

Twin Research in Communication

In communication, the first major twin study published was conducted by Cary Wecht Horvath in 1995.^[34] In her study, Horvath compared 62 pairs of identical twins and 42 pairs of fraternal twins to see if they differed in terms of their communicator style, or “the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, filtered, or understood.”^[35] Ultimately, Horvath found that identical twins’ communicator styles were more similar than those of fraternal twins. Hence, a good proportion of someone’s communicator style appears to be a result of someone’s genetic makeup. However, this is not to say that genetics was the only factor at play about someone’s communicator style.

Other research in communication has examined how a range of different communication variables are associated with genetics when analyzed through twin studies:^{[36],[37],[38]}

• Interpersonal Affiliation
• Aggressiveness
• Social Anxiety
• Audience Anxiety
• Self-Perceived Communication Competence
• Willingness to Communicate
• Communicator Adaptability

It’s important to realize that the authors of this book do not assume nor promote that all of our communication is biological. Still, we also cannot dismiss the importance that genetics plays in our communicative behavior and development. Here is our view of the interrelationship between environment and genetics. Imagine we have two twins who were separated at birth. One twin is placed in a middle-class family, where she will be exposed to numerous opportunities. The other twin, on the other hand, was placed with a lower-income family where the opportunities she will have in life are more limited. The first twin attends a school that has a lot of money and award-winning teachers. The second twin attends an inner-city school where there aren’t enough textbooks for the students, and the school struggles with recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. The first student has the opportunity to engage in a wide range of extracurricular activities both in school (mock UN, debate, student council, etc.) and out of school (traveling softball club, skiing, yoga, etc.). The second twin’s school doesn’t have the budget for extracurricular activities, and her family cannot afford out-of-school activities, so she ends up taking a job when she’s a teenager. Now imagine that these twins are naturally aggressive. The first twin’s aggressiveness may be exhibited by her need to win in both mock UN and debate; she may also strive not only to sit on the student council but also to be its president. In this respect, she shows more prosocial forms of aggression. The second twin doesn’t have these more prosocial outlets for her aggression. As such, her aggression may be demonstrated through more interpersonal problems with her family, teachers, friends, etc. Instead of having those more positive outlets for her aggression, she may become more physically aggressive in her day-to-day life. We believe that the context and world in which a child is raised are very important in determining how they display communicative behaviors, even if those communicative behaviors have biological underpinnings.

Temperament Types

Temperament is the genetic predisposition that causes an individual to behave, react, and think specifically. The notion that people have different temperaments dates back to the Greek physician Hippocrates, known today as the father of medicine, who first wrote of four temperaments in 370 BCE: sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic. Although closely related, temperament and personality refer to two different constructs. Jan Strelau explains that temperament and personality differ in five specific ways:

1. Temperament is biologically determined, whereas the social environment shapes personality.
2. Temperamental features may be identified from early childhood, whereas personality is shaped in later periods of development.
3. Individual differences in temperamental traits, such as anxiety, extraversion-introversion, and stimulus-seeking, are also observed in animals, whereas personality is considered a prerogative of humans.
4. Temperament stands for stylistic aspects. Personality is the content aspect of behavior.
5. Unlike temperament, personality refers to the integrative function of human behavior.^[39]

In 1978, David Keirsey developed the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. This questionnaire combines the Myers-Briggs Temperament Indicator with a model of four temperament types developed by psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer in the early 20th century.^[40] Take a minute and go to David Keirsey’s website and complete his four-personality type questionnaire (http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx). You’ll also be able to learn a lot more about the four-type personality system.

In reality, numerous four-type personality systems have been created over the years. Table 3.1 presents several four-type personality systems currently available on the market. Each one has its quirks and patterns, but the basic results are the same.

And before you ask, none of the research examining the four types has found clear sex differences among the patterns. Females and males are seen proportionately in all four categories.

For example, training publisher HRDQ publishes the “What’s My Style?” series (http://www.hrdqstore.com/Style), which applies the four personal styles to various workplace issues, including coaching, communication, leadership, learning, selling, teams, and time management.

David Keirsey argues that the consistent use of the four temperament types (regardless of the terms used) indicates the long-standing tradition and complexity of these ideas.^[41]

The Big Five

In the world of personality, one of the most commonly discussed concepts in research is the Big Five. In the late 1950s, Ernest C. Tupes and Raymond E. Christal conducted a series of studies examining a model of personality.^[42],[43] Ultimately, they found five consistent personality clusters they labeled: surgency, agreeableness, dependability, emotional stability, and culture). Listed below are the five broad personality categories with the personality trait words in parentheses that were associated with these categories:

1. Surgency (silent vs. talkative; secretive vs. frank; cautious vs. adventurous; submissive vs. assertive; and languid, slow vs. energetic)
2. Agreeableness (spiteful vs. good-natured; obstructive vs. cooperative; suspicious vs. trustful; rigid vs. adaptable; cool, aloof vs. attentive to people; jealous vs. not so; demanding vs. emotionally mature; self-willed vs. mild; and hard, stern vs. kindly)
3. Dependability (frivolous vs. responsible and unscrupulous vs. conscientious; indolent vs. insistently orderly; quitting vs. persevering; and unconventional vs. conventional)
4. Emotional Stability (worrying, anxious vs. placid; easily upset vs. poised, tough; changeable vs. emotionally stable; neurotic vs. not so; hypochondriacal vs. not so; and emotional vs. calm)
5. Culture (boorish vs. intellectual, cultured; clumsy, awkward vs. polished; immature vs. independent-minded; lacking artistic feelings vs. aesthetically fastidious, practical, logical vs. imaginative)

Although Tupes and Christal were first, they were not the only psychologists researching the idea of personality clusters.

Two other researchers, Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, expanded on Tupes and Christal’s work to create the OCEAN Model of personality. McCrae and Costa originally started examining just three parts of the model, openness, neuroticism, and extraversion.^[44] The model was later expanded to include both conscientiousness and agreeableness (Figure 3.7).^[45] Before progressing forward, take a minute and complete one of the many different freely available tests of the Five Factor Model of Personality:

• https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/personality-quiz/,
• https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-BFFM/,
• https://www.123test.com/personality-test/,
• https://www.idrlabs.com/big-five-subscales/test.php

Openness

Openness refers to “openness to experience,” or the idea that some people are more welcoming of new things. These people will challenge their underlying life assumptions and are more likely to be amenable to differing points of view. Table 3.2 explores some traits associated with having both high levels of openness and having low levels of openness.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is the degree to which an individual is aware of their actions and how their actions impact other people. Table 3.3 explores some traits associated with having both high levels of conscientiousness and low levels of conscientiousness.

Extraversion

Extraversion is the degree to which someone is sociable and outgoing. Table 3.4 explores some traits associated with having both high levels of extraversion and low levels of extraversion.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness refers to the degree to which someone engages in prosocial behaviors, such as altruism, cooperation, and compassion. Table 3.5 examines some traits associated with having both high and low levels of agreeableness.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is the degree to which an individual is vulnerable to anxiety, depression, and emotional instability. Table 3.6 examines some traits associated with having both high and low levels of neuroticism.

Cognitive Dispositions

Cognitive dispositions refer to general patterns of mental processes that impact how people respond and react to the world around them. These dispositions (or one’s natural mental or emotional outlook) take on several forms. For our purposes, we’ll briefly examine the four identified by John Daly: locus of control, cognitive complexity, authoritarianism/dogmatism, and emotional intelligence.^[47]

Locus of Control

One’s locus of control refers to an individual’s perceived control over their behavior and life circumstances. We refer to two different loci when discussing locus of control. First, we have people who have an internal locus of control. People with an internal locus of control believe that they can control their behavior and life circumstances. For example, people with an internal dating locus of control would believe that their dating lives are ultimately a result of their behavior and decisions regarding dating. My dating life exists because of my choices. The opposite of internal locus of control is the external locus of control, or the belief that an individual’s behavior and circumstances exist because of forces outside the individual’s control. An individual with an external dating locus of control would believe that their dating life is a matter of luck or divine intervention. This individual would also be more likely to blame outside forces if their dating life isn’t going as desired. We’ll periodically revisit locus of control in this text because of its importance in a wide variety of interpersonal interactions.

Cognitive Complexity

According to John Daly, cognitive “complexity has been defined in terms of the number of different constructs an individual has to describe others (differentiation), the degree to which those constructs cohere (integration), and the level of abstraction of the constructs (abstractiveness).”^[48] By differentiation, we are talking about the number of distinctions or separate elements an individual can utilize to recognize and interpret an event. For example, in the world of communication, someone who can effectively attend to another individual’s body language can differentiate large amounts of nonverbal data to understand how another person is thinking or feeling. Someone with low differentiation may only understand a few pronounced nonverbal behaviors.

Integration refers to an individual’s ability to see connections or relationships among the various elements he or she has differentiated. It’s one thing to recognize several unique nonverbal behaviors, but it’s the ability to interpret nonverbal behaviors that enables someone to be genuinely aware of someone else’s body language. It would be one thing if I could recognize that someone is smiling, an eyebrow is going up, the head is tilted, and someone’s arms are crossed in front. Still, if I cannot see all these unique behaviors as a total package, then I won’t be able to interpret this person’s actual nonverbal behavior.

The last part of Daly’s definition involves the ability to see levels of abstraction. Abstraction refers to something that exists apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances. For example, suppose someone comes right out and verbally tells you that they disagree with something you said. In that case, this person is concretely communicating disagreement; as the receiver of the disagreement, it should be relatively easy to interpret the disagreement. If someone doesn’t tell you he or she disagrees with what you’ve said but provides only small nonverbal cues of disagreement, being able to interpret those theoretical cues is attending to communicative behavior that is considerably more abstract.

Overall, cognitive complexity is a critical cognitive disposition because it directly impacts interpersonal relationships. According to Brant Burleson and Scott Caplan, cognitive complexity impacts several interpersonal constructs:^[49]

1. Form more detailed and organized impressions of others;
2. Better able to remember impressions of others;
3. Better able to resolve inconsistencies in information about others;
4. Learn complex social information quickly; and
5. Use multiple dimensions of judgment in making social evaluations.

These findings clearly demonstrate that cognitive complexity is crucial in determining an individual’s ability to understand and make judgments about others in interpersonal interactions.

Authoritarianism/Dogmatism

According to Jason Wrench, James C. McCroskey, and Virginia Richmond, two personality characteristics that commonly impact interpersonal communication are authoritarianism and dogmatism.^[50] Authoritarianism is a form of social organization where individuals favor absolute obedience to authority (or authorities) as opposed to individual freedom. The highly authoritarian individual believes that individuals should just knowingly submit to their power. Individuals who believe in authoritarianism but are not in power believe that others should submit themselves to those who have power.

Dogmatism, although closely related, is distinct from authoritarianism. Dogmatism is defined as the inclination to believe one’s point of view as undeniably true based on faulty premises and without consideration of evidence and the opinions of others. Individuals who are highly dogmatic believe there is generally only one point of view on a specific topic, and it’s their point of view. Highly dogmatic individuals typically view the world in terms of “black and white” while missing most of the shades of gray that exist between. Dogmatic individuals impose their beliefs on others and refuse to consider any variation or debate about these beliefs, which can lead to strained interpersonal relationships. Both authoritarianism and dogmatism “tap into the same broad idea: Some people are more rigid than others, and this rigidity affects both how they communicate and how they respond to communication.”^[51]

One closely related term that has received some minor exploration in interpersonal communication is right-wing authoritarianism. According to Bob Altemeyer in his book The Authoritarians (https://theauthoritarians.org/), right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) tend to have three specific characteristics:

1. RWAs believe in submitting themselves to individuals they perceive as established and legitimate authorities.
2. RWAs adhere strictly to social and cultural norms.
3. RWAs become aggressive toward those who do not submit to established, legitimate authorities and those who violate social and cultural norms.

Please understand that Altemeyer’s use of the term “right-wing” does not imply the same political connotation that is often associated with it in the United States. As Altemeyer explains, “Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers right-wing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English ‘right’(pronounced ‘writ’) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said of others.”^[52] Under this definition, right-wing authoritarianism perfectly combines both dogmatism and authoritarianism.

Right-wing authoritarianism has been linked to several interpersonal variables. For example, parents/guardians who are RWAs are more likely to believe in a highly dogmatic approach to parenting. In contrast, those who are not RWAs tend to be more permissive in their approaches to parenting.^[53] Another study found that men with high levels of RWA were more likely to have been sexually aggressive in the past and were more likely to report sexually aggressive intentions for the future.^[54] Men with high RWA scores tend to be considerably more sexist and believe in highly traditional sex roles, which impacts how they communicate and interact with women.^[55] Overall, RWA tends to negatively impact interpersonal interactions with anyone who does not see an individual’s specific worldview and does not come from their cultural background.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is an individual’s appraisal and expression of their emotions and the emotions of others in a manner that enhances thought, living, and communicative interactions. Emotional intelligence, while not a new concept, really became popular after Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence.^[56] Social psychologists had been interested in and studying the importance of emotions long before Goleman’s book, but his book seemed to shed new light on an old idea.^[57] Goleman drew quite a bit on a framework that was created by two social psychologists named Peter Salovey and John Mayer, who had coined the term “emotional intelligence” in an article in 1990.^[58] In the Salovey and Mayer framework for emotional intelligence, emotional intelligence consisted of four basic processes. Figure 3.8 pictorially demonstrates the four basic parts of Salovey and Mayer’s Emotional Intelligence Model.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is crucial for effective interpersonal communication, as individuals with higher EQ tend to be more sociable and less socially anxious. Due to both their sociability and lower anxiety, individuals with a high EQ are more socially skilled and tend to have higher quality interpersonal relationships.

A closely related communication construct originally coined by Melanie and Steven Booth-Butterfield is affective orientation.^[59] As it is conceptualized by the Booth-Butterfields, affective orientation (AO) is “the degree to which people are aware of their emotions, perceive them as important, and actively consider their affective responses in making judgments and interacting with others.”^[60] Under the auspices of AO, the general assumption is that highly affective-oriented people are (1) cognitively aware of their own and others’ emotions, and (2) can implement emotional information in communication with others. Not surprisingly, the Booth-Butterfields found that highly affective-oriented individuals also reported greater affect intensity in their relationships.

Melanie and Steven Booth-Butterfield later furthered their understanding of AO by examining it in terms of how an individual’s emotions drive their decisions in life.^[61] As the Booth-Butterfields explain, in their further conceptualization of AO, they “are primarily interested in those individuals who not only sense and value their emotions but scrutinize and give them weight to direct behavior.”^[62] In this sense, the Booth-Butterfields are expanding our notion of AO by explaining that some individuals use their emotions as a guiding force for their behaviors and their lives. On the other end of the spectrum, you have individuals who use no emotional information in how they behave and guide their lives. Although relatively little research has examined AO, the conducted research indicates its importance in interpersonal relationships. For example, in one study, individuals who viewed their parents/guardians as having high AO levels reported more open communication with those parents/guardians.^[63]

Personal-Social Dispositions

Social-personal dispositions refer to general patterns of mental processes that impact how people socially relate to others or view themselves. The following dispositions impact how people interact with others, but they do so from very different places. Without delving too deeply, we will examine the seven personal-social dispositions identified by John Daly.^[64]

Loneliness

The first social-personal disposition is loneliness or an individual’s emotional distress that results from a feeling of solitude or isolation from social relationships. Loneliness can be categorized into two forms: emotional and social. Emotional loneliness results when an individual feels that he or she does not have an emotional connection with others. We get these emotional connections through our associations with loved ones and close friends. If an individual is estranged from their family or doesn’t have close friendships, they may feel lonely because of a lack of these emotional connections. Social loneliness results from a lack of a satisfying social network. Imagine you’re someone who has historically been very social. Still, you move to a new city and find building new social relationships very difficult because the people in the new location are very cliquish. The inability to develop a new social network can lead someone to feelings of loneliness because they may feel a sense of social boredom or marginalization.

Loneliness tends to impact people in several ways, both interpersonally and intrapersonally. Some of the general research findings associated with loneliness have showed that these people have lower self-esteem, are more socially passive, are more sensitive to rejection from others, and are often less socially skilled. Interestingly, lonely individuals attribute their interpersonal failures to an internal locus of control and their interpersonal successes to an external locus of control.^[65]

Take a few moments and complete the Social Connection and Solitutde Scale (SCSS) located in Figure 3.9. Before proceeding, it’s essential to note that the SCSS is not a diagnostic tool and was developed for this book based on a range of measures designed to assess aspects of loneliness, social isolation, and solitude. This will give you a general idea of your perceptions of loneliness, social isolation, and solitude, but is not intended to diagnose these phenomena as much as it gets you thinking about the concepts involved.

Subscale Definitions for the SCSS

Now that you’ve completed the SCSS, let’s look at the various subscales measured in the SCSS.

Emotional Connection

The degree to which an individual experiences deep, meaningful bonds characterized by mutual understanding, warmth, and care in their relationships. This subscale measures the quality and emotional depth of interpersonal connections rather than their quantity. High scores indicate feeling understood, valued, and emotionally close to others, while low scores suggest a lack of intimate, fulfilling relationships.

Social Integration

The extent to which an individual is actively included and participates in social groups, communities, and shared activities. This subscale assesses one’s sense of belonging and involvement in social contexts. High scores reflect regular participation in group activities, feeling welcomed by others, and having a meaningful role in social settings. Low scores indicate exclusion from social groups and limited opportunities for shared experiences.

Communication Engagement

The frequency, quality, and ease of verbal and digital interactions an individual has with others. This subscale specifically measures the communicative aspects of social connection, including both the quantity of interactions and their meaningful nature. High scores indicate regular, comfortable, and substantive communication with others across various channels. Low scores suggest minimal communication, difficulty maintaining conversations, or primarily superficial exchanges.

Support Accessibility

The availability and responsiveness of practical and emotional support when needed. This subscale measures whether an individual can successfully access help during challenging times and whether their support network provides assistance that effectively meets their needs. High scores indicate reliable access to various forms of support, while low scores suggest difficulty obtaining help or having unmet support needs.

Solitude Appreciation

The ability to use time alone constructively for personal growth, reflection, and restoration. This subscale measures positive experiences with solitude, including using alone time for creativity, self-care, and processing experiences. High scores indicate that solitude enhances well-being and personal development, while low scores suggest difficulty finding value or comfort in being alone.

Isolation Distress

The psychological pain and functional impairment resulting from unwanted social disconnection. This subscale measures the negative emotional and practical consequences of inadequate social contact and relationships. High scores indicate significant suffering due to isolation, including sadness, emptiness, and disruption to daily life. Low scores suggest minimal distress from one’s current level of social connection.

Composite Score Definitions for the SCSS

The subscales were designed to measure three larger concepts: social connection, communication isolation, and solitude balance. Let’s look at these in more detail.

Total Social Connection

A comprehensive measure of an individual’s overall connectedness to others, encompassing the emotional quality of relationships, inclusion in social groups, regular communication patterns, and access to support. This composite score reflects the multidimensional nature of human connection, recognizing that true social connection requires not just the presence of others, but meaningful bonds, active participation, ongoing communication, and reliable support. High scores indicate robust social connection across multiple domains of life, while low scores suggest pervasive disconnection that may manifest as loneliness, even when others are physically present.

Communication Isolation

The degree to which an individual lacks regular, meaningful verbal and digital interactions with others. This derived score specifically targets the communicative dimension of social isolation, recognizing that modern isolation often involves minimal daily conversation, few communication partners, and limited opportunities for substantive dialogue. High Communication Isolation scores indicate severe restrictions in daily communication patterns, which may result from physical isolation, social anxiety, lack of social networks, or environmental barriers. This measure is particularly relevant in digital age contexts where someone might be surrounded by people yet experience profound communication deficits.

Solitude Balance

The relationship between an individual’s positive experiences with being alone and their distress from unwanted isolation. This differential score recognizes that solitude and loneliness are distinct phenomena—solitude can be restorative and growth-promoting, while isolation can be painful and debilitating. Positive Solitude Balance scores indicate that time alone is experienced as beneficial and chosen, contributing to well-being rather than detracting from it. Negative scores suggest that being alone is predominantly experienced as painful isolation rather than peaceful solitude. A balanced score near zero may indicate either minimal alone time or ambivalence about solitary experiences.

Depression

Depression is a psychological disorder characterized by varying degrees of disappointment, guilt, hopelessness, loneliness, sadness, and self-doubt, all of which negatively impact a person’s general mental and physical well-being. Depression (and all of its characteristics) is very difficult to encapsulate in a single definition. If you’ve ever experienced a major depressive episode, it’s a lot easier to understand what depression is compared to those who have never experienced one. Depressed people are less satisfied with life and less satisfied with their interpersonal interactions as well. Research has shown that depression negatively affects all forms of interpersonal relationships: dating, friends, family, work, etc. We will periodically come back to depression as we explore various parts of interpersonal communication.

Self-Esteem

As discussed earlier in this chapter, self-esteem comprises your sense of self-worth and the level of satisfaction you have with yourself; it is how you feel about yourself. A good self-image raises your self-esteem; a poor self-image often results in poor self-esteem, lack of confidence, and insecurity. Not surprisingly, individuals with low self-esteem have more problematic interpersonal relationships.

Narcissism

Ovid’s story of Narcissus and Echo has been passed down through the ages. The story starts with a Mountain Nymph named Echo who falls in love with a human named Narcissus. When Echo reveals herself to Narcissus, he rejects her. In true Roman fashion, this slight could not be left unpunished. Echo eventually leads Narcissus to a pool of water where he quickly falls in love with his reflection. He ultimately dies, staring at himself, because he realizes that his love will never be met.

The modern conceptualization of narcissism is based on Ovid’s story of Narcissus. Today, researchers view narcissism as a psychological condition (or personality disorder) in which a person has a preoccupation with oneself, an inflated sense of one’s importance, and a longing for admiration from others. Highly narcissistic individuals are completely self-focused and ignore the communicative needs and emotions of others. In fact, in social situations, highly narcissistic individuals strive to be the center of attention.

Anita Vangelisti, Mark Knapp, and John Daly examined a purely communicative form of narcissism, which they deemed conversational narcissism.^[66] Conversational narcissism is an extreme focusing of one’s interests and desires during an interpersonal interaction while completely ignoring the interests and desires of another person: Vangelisti, Knapp, and Daly found four general categories of conversationally narcissistic behavior. First, conversational narcissists inflate their self-importance while displaying an inflated self-image. Some behaviors include bragging, refusing to listen to criticism, praising oneself, etc. Second, conversational narcissists exploit a conversation by attempting to focus the direction of the conversation on topics of interest to them. Some behaviors include talking so fast others cannot interject, shifting the topic to oneself, interrupting others, etc. Third, conversational narcissists are exhibitionists, or they attempt to show off or entertain others to turn the focus on themselves. Some behaviors include primping or preening, dressing to attract attention, being or laughing louder than others, positioning oneself in the center, etc. Last, conversational narcissists have impersonal relationships. During their interactions with others, conversational narcissists show a lack of caring about another person and a lack of interest in another person. Some common behaviors include “glazing over” while someone else is speaking, appearing impatient while someone is speaking, and looking around the room while someone is speaking, among others. People engaged in interpersonal encounters with conversational narcissists are highly unsatisfied with those interactions.

Machiavellianism

In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli (Figure 3.10) wrote a text called The Prince. Although Machiavelli dedicated the book to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, a member of the ruling Florentine Medici family, the book was originally written for Lorenzo’s uncle. In The Prince, Machiavelli unabashedly describes how he believes leaders should keep power. First, he notes that traditional leadership virtues, such as decency, honor, and trust, should be discarded in favor of a more calculated approach to leadership. Specifically, Machiavelli believed humans were easily manipulated, so ultimately, leaders can either be the ones influencing their followers or wait for someone else to wield that influence in a different direction.

In 1970, two social psychologists, Richard Christie and Florence Geis, investigated whether Machiavelli’s ideas were still in practice in the 20^th Century.^[67] The basic model that Christie and Geis proposed consisted of four basic Machiavellian characteristics:

1. Lack of affect in interpersonal relationships (relationships are a means to an end).
2. Lack of concern with conventional morality (people are tools to be used in the best way possible).
3. Rational view of others not based on psychopathology (people who actively manipulate others must be logical and rational).
4. Focused on short-term tasks rather than long-range ramifications of behavior (these individuals have little ideological/organizational commitment).

Imagine working with one of these people. Imagine being led by one of these people. Part of their research consisted of creating a research questionnaire to measure one’s tendency toward Machiavellianism. The questionnaire has undergone several revisions, but the most common one is called the Mach IV (http://personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php).

Interpersonally, highly Machiavellian individuals tend to view others as means to an end, using them as stepping stones to achieve their goals. If talking to someone in a particular manner makes that other person feel good about themselves, the Machiavellian has no problem doing this if it helps the Machiavellian get what they want. Ultimately, Machiavellian behavior is very problematic. In interpersonal interactions where the receiver of a Machiavellian’s attempt at manipulation is aware of the manipulation, the receiver is highly unsatisfied with these communicative interactions. However, someone who is truly adept at the art of manipulation may be harder to recognize than most people realize.

Empathy

Empathy is the ability to recognize and mutually experience another person’s attitudes, emotions, experiences, and thoughts. Highly empathetic individuals possess a unique ability to connect with others interpersonally, as they can genuinely perceive how others view life. Individuals who are unempathetic often struggle to take or understand another person’s perspective, resulting in more rigid and less emotionally driven interpersonal interactions. People with high levels of empathy have more successful and rewarding interactions with others compared to those with lower empathy levels. Furthermore, people who are interacting with a highly empathetic person find those interactions more satisfying than when interacting with someone who is unempathetic.

Self-Monitoring

The last of the personal-social dispositions is referred to as self-monitoring. In 1974, Mark Snyder developed his basic theory of self-monitoring, which proposes that individuals differ in the degree to which they can control their behaviors following the appropriate social rules and norms involved in interpersonal interaction.^[68] In this theory, Snyder proposes that there are some individuals adept at selecting appropriate behavior in light of the context of a situation, which he deems high self-monitors. High self-monitors want others to view them in a precise manner (impression management), so they enact communicative behaviors that ensure suitable or favorable public appearances. On the other hand, some people are unconcerned with how others view them and will act consistently across differing communicative contexts, despite changes in cultural rules and norms. Snyder called these people low self-monitors.

Interpersonally, high self-monitors tend to have more meaningful and satisfying interactions with others. Conversely, individuals who are low self-monitors have more problematic and less satisfying interpersonal relationships with others. In romantic relationships, high self-monitors develop relational intimacy more quickly than individuals who are low self-monitors. Furthermore, high self-monitors form numerous interpersonal friendships with a diverse range of people. Low-self-monitors may have only a small handful of friends, but these friendships tend to be more meaningful and have greater depth. Furthermore, high self-monitors are also more likely to take on leadership positions and receive promotions within an organization compared to their low self-monitoring counterparts. Overall, self-monitoring is a crucial dispositional characteristic that significantly impacts interpersonal relationships.

Communication & Relational Dispositions

In the previous section, we explored the importance of temperament, cognitive dispositions, and personal-social dispositions. In this section, we will explore the last two dispositions discussed by John Daly: communication and relational dispositions.^[69]

Communication Dispositions

Now that we’ve examined cognitive and personal-social dispositions, we can move on and explore some intrapersonal dispositions studied specifically by communication scholars. Communication dispositions are general patterns of communicative behavior. We will explore the nature of introversion/extraversion, approach and avoidance traits, argumentativeness/verbal aggressiveness, and sociocommunicative orientation.

Introversion/Extraversion

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the concept of introversion/extraversion has been widely studied by both psychologists and communication researchers. People exist on a continuum that ranges from highly extraverted (an individual’s tendency to be talkative, dynamic, and outgoing) to highly introverted (an individual’s tendency to be quiet, shy, and more reserved). Before continuing, take a moment to complete the Introversion Scale, created by James C. McCroskey and available on his website (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/introversion.htm). There is considerable research that has found an individual’s tendency toward extraversion or introversion to be biologically based.^[70] As such, where you score on the Introversion Scale may largely be a factor of your genetic makeup and not something you can alter greatly.

With interpersonal relationships, individuals who score highly on extraversion are perceived by others as intelligent, friendly, and attractive. As such, extraverts have more opportunities for interpersonal communication; it’s not surprising that they have better communicative skills when compared to their more introverted counterparts.

Approach and Avoidance Traits

The second set of communication dispositions is categorized as approach and avoidance traits. According to Virginia Richmond, Jason Wrench, and James McCroskey, approach and avoidance traits depict the tendency an individual has to either approach or avoid situations where they will have to communicate with others.^[71] To help us understand the approach and avoidance traits, we’ll examine three specific traits commonly discussed by communication scholars: shyness, communication apprehension, and willingness to communicate.

Shyness

In a classic study conducted by Philip Zimbardo, he asked two questions to over 5,000 participants: Do you presently consider yourself to be a shy person? If “No,” was there ever a period in your life during which you considered yourself to be a shy person?^[72] The results of these two questions were quite surprising. Over 40% reported that they considered themselves to be shy at the time. Over 80% reported being shy at some point in their lives. Another, more revealing measure of shyness, was created by James C. McCroskey and Virginia Richmond and is available on his website (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/shyness.htm).^[73] Before going further in this chapter, take a minute and complete the shyness scale.

According to Arnold Buss, shyness involves discomfort when an individual is interacting with another person(s) in a social situation.^[74] Buss further clarifies the concept by differentiating between anxious shyness and self-conscious shyness. Anxious shyness involves the fear associated with dealing with others face-to-face. Anxious shyness is initially caused by a combination of strangers, novel settings, novel social roles, fear of evaluation, or fear of self-presentation. However, long-term anxious shyness is caused by chronic fear, low sociability, low self-esteem, loneliness, and avoidance conditioning. Self-conscious shyness, on the other hand, involves feeling conspicuous or socially exposed when dealing with others face-to-face. Self-conscious shyness is initially caused by feelings of conspicuousness, breaches of one’s privacy, teasing/ridicule/bullying, overpraise, or one’s foolish actions. However, long-term self-conscious shyness can be a result of socialization, public self-consciousness, history of teasing/ridicule/bullying, low self-esteem, negative appearance, and poor social skills.

Whether one suffers from anxious or self-conscious shyness, the general outcome is a detriment to an individual’s interpersonal interactions with others. Shy individuals often have limited opportunities to engage in interpersonal interactions with others, so their communicative skills may not be as well-developed as those of their less-shy counterparts. This lack of skill practice places a shy individual in a never-ending spiral, where they always feel just outside the crowd.

Communication Apprehension

James C. McCroskey started examining the notion of anxiety in communicative situations during the late 1960s. Since that time, research on communication apprehension has been one of the most commonly studied variables in the field. McCroskey defined communication apprehension as the fear or anxiety “associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons.”^[75] Although many measures have been created over the years examining communication apprehension, the most prominent one has been James C. McCroskey’s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24).^[76] If you have not done so already, please stop reading and complete the PRCA-24 before going further (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/prca24.htm).

The PRCA-24 evaluates four distinct types of communication apprehension (CA): interpersonal CA, group CA, meeting CA, and public CA. Interpersonal CA is the one most important to us within this textbook because it examines the extent to which individuals experience fear or anxiety when thinking about or actually interacting with another person (For more on the topic of CA as a general area of study, read Richmond, Wrench, and McCroskey’s book, Communication Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness).^[77] Interpersonal CA impacts people’s relationship development almost immediately. In one experimental study, researchers paired people and had them converse for 15 minutes. At the end of the 15-minute conversation, the researchers had both parties rate the other individual. The results indicated that high-CAs (highly communicative apprehensive people) were perceived as less attractive, less trustworthy, and less satisfied than low-CAs (people with low levels of communication apprehension).^[78] High-CAs don’t fare well in most of the research in interpersonal communication. Instead of delving into too much detail now, we will periodically revisit CA as we explore various topics throughout this book.

Willingness to Communicate

The final of our approach and avoidance traits is the willingness to communicate (WTC). James McCroskey and Virginia Richmond originally coined the WTC concept as an individual’s predisposition to initiate communication with others.^[80] Willingness to communicate examines an individual’s tendency to initiate communicative interactions with other people. Take a minute and complete the WTC scale available from James C. McCroskey’s website (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/WTC.htm).

Individuals with high WTC levels are more likely to initiate interpersonal interactions than those with low WTC levels. However, just because someone is not likely to initiate conversations doesn’t mean that he or she is unable to actively and successfully engage in interpersonal interactions. For this reason, we refer to WTC as an approach trait because it describes an individual’s likelihood of approaching interactions with other people. As noted by Richmond et al., “People with a high WTC attempt to communicate more often and work harder to make that communication effective than people with a low WTC, who make far fewer attempts and often aren’t as effective at communicating.”^[81]

Argumentativeness/Verbal Aggressiveness

Starting in the mid-1980s, Dominic Infante and Charles Wigley defined verbal aggression as “the tendency to attack the self-concept of individuals instead of, or besides, their positions on topics of communication.”^[82] Notice that this definition specifically is focused on the attacking of someone’s self-concept or an individual’s attitudes, opinions, and cognitions about one’s competence, character, strengths, and weaknesses. For example, if someone perceives themself as a good worker, then a verbally aggressive attack would demean that person’s quality of work or their ability to do future quality work. In a study conducted by Terry Kinney, he found that self-concept attacks happen on three basic fronts: group membership (e.g., “Your whole division is a bunch of idiots!”), personal failings (e.g., “No wonder you keep getting passed up for a promotion!”), and relational failings (e.g., “No wonder your spouse left you!”).^[83]

Now that we’ve discussed what verbal aggression is, we should distinguish it from another closely related term, argumentativeness. According to Dominic Infante and Andrew Rancer, argumentativeness is a communication trait that “predisposes the individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues, and to attacking verbally the positions which other people take on these issues.”^[84] You’ll notice that argumentativeness occurs when an individual attacks another’s positions on various issues; whereas, verbal aggression occurs when an individual attacks someone’s self-concept instead of attacking another’s positions. Argumentativeness is viewed as a constructive communication trait, whereas verbal aggression is considered a destructive communication trait.

Individuals who are highly verbally aggressive are not liked by those around them.^[85] Researchers have seen this pattern of results across different relationship types. Highly verbally aggressive individuals justify their verbal aggression in interpersonal relationships regardless of the relational stage (new vs. long-term relationship).^[86] In an interesting study conducted by Beth Semic and Daniel Canary, the two set out to watch interpersonal interactions and the arguments formed during those interactions based on individuals’ verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness.^[87] The researchers had friendship dyads come into the lab and asked them to discuss two different topics. The researchers found that highly argumentative individuals did not differ in the number of arguments they made compared to their low-argumentative counterparts. However, highly verbally aggressive individuals provided far fewer arguments when compared to their less verbally aggressive counterparts. Although this study did not find that highly argumentative people provided more (or better) arguments, highly verbally aggressive people provided fewer actual arguments when they disagreed with another person. Overall, verbal aggression and argumentativeness have been shown to impact several interpersonal relationships, so we will periodically revisit these concepts throughout the book.

Sociocommunicative Orientation

In the mid-to-late 1970s, Sandra Bem began examining psychological gender orientation.^[88] In her theorizing of psychological gender, Bem measured two constructs, masculinity and femininity, using a scale she created called the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI–http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/bsri.html). Her measure evaluated an individual’s femininity or masculinity. Bem defined masculinity as individuals exhibiting perceptions and traits typically associated with males, and femininity as individuals exhibiting perceptions and traits usually associated with females. Individuals who adhered to both their biological sex and their corresponding psychological gender (masculine males, feminine females) were considered sex-typed. Individuals who differed between their biological sex and their corresponding psychological gender (feminine males, masculine females) were labeled cross-sex typed. Lastly, some individuals exhibited both feminine and masculine traits, and these individuals were referred to as androgynous.

Virginia Richmond and James McCroskey opted to discard the biological sex-biased language of “masculine” and “feminine” for the more neutral language of “assertiveness” and “responsiveness.”^[89] The combination of assertiveness and responsiveness was called someone’s sociocommunicative orientation, which emphasizes that Bem’s notions of gender are truly representative of communicator traits and not one’s biological sex. Before talking about the two factors of sociocommunicative orientation, please take a few minutes to complete the Sociocommunicative Orientation Scale (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/sco.htm).^[90]

Responsiveness

Responsiveness refers to an individual who “considers other’s feelings, listens to what others have to say, and recognizes the needs of others.”^[91] If you filled out the Sociocommunicative Orientation Scale, you would find that the words associated with responsiveness include the following: helpful, responsive to others, sympathetic, compassionate, sensitive to the needs of others, sincere, gentle, warm, tender, and friendly.

Assertiveness

Assertiveness refers to individuals who “can initiate, maintain, and terminate conversations, according to their interpersonal goals.”^[92] If you filled out the Sociocommunicative Orientation Scale, you would find that the words associated with assertiveness include the following: defends own beliefs, independent, forceful, has a strong personality, assertive, dominant, willing to take a stand, acts as a leader, aggressive, and competitive.

Versatility

Communication always exists within specific contexts, so selecting a single best style to communicate in every context is not feasible because not all patterns of communication are appropriate or effective in all situations. As such, McCroskey and Richmond added a third dimension to the mix that they called versatility.^[93] Individuals who are competent communicators know when it is both appropriate and effective to use both responsiveness and assertiveness. Pairing the two terms against each other made little sense to McCroskey and Richmond because both were so important. Other terms scholars have associated with versatility include “adaptability, flexibility, rhetorical sensitivity, and style flexing.”^[94] The opposite of versatility was also noted by McCroskey and Richmond, who saw such terms as dogmatic, rigid, uncompromising, and unyielding as demonstrating the lack of versatility.

Sociocommunicative Orientation and Interpersonal Communication

Sociocommunicative orientation has been examined in several studies that relate to interpersonal communication. In a study conducted by Brian Patterson and Shawn Beckett, the researchers sought to see the importance of sociocommunicative orientation and how people repair relationships.^[95] Highly assertive individuals were found to take control of repair situations. Highly responsive individuals differed in their approaches to relational repair, depending on whether the target was perceived as assertive or responsive. When a target was perceived as highly assertive, the responsive individual let the assertive person take control of the relational repair process. When a target was perceived as highly responsive, the responsive individual was more likely to encourage the other person to self-disclose and took on the role of the listener. As a whole, highly assertive individuals were more likely to emphasize the optimistic aspects of the relationship. In contrast, highly responsive individuals were more likely to take on the role of a listener during the relational repair. Later in this book, we will revisit several interpersonal communication contexts where sociocommunicative orientation has been researched.

Relational Dispositions

The final three dimensions proposed by John Daly were relational dispositions.^[96] Relational dispositions are general patterns of mental processes that impact how people view and organize themselves in relationships. For our purposes, we’ll examine two unique relational dispositions: attachment and rejection sensitivity.

Attachment

In a set of three different volumes, John Bowlby theorized that humans were born with a set of inherent behaviors designed to allow proximity with supportive others.^{[97],[98],[99]} These behaviors were called attachment behaviors, and the supportive others were called attachment figures. Inherent in Bowlby’s model of attachment is that humans have a biological drive to attach themselves to others. For example, a baby’s crying and searching help the baby find their attachment figure (typically a parent/guardian) who can provide care, protection, and support. Infants (and adults) view attachment as an issue of whether an attachment figure is nearby, accessible, and attentive. Bowlby believed that these interpersonal models, which are developed in infancy through thousands of interactions with an attachment figure, would influence an individual’s interpersonal relationships throughout their entire lifespan. According to Bowlby, the basic internal working model of affection consists of three components.^[100] Infants who bond with their attachment figure during the first two years develop a model that people are trustworthy, develop a model that informs the infant that he or she is valuable, and develop a model that informs the infant that he or she is effective during interpersonal interactions. As you can easily see, not developing this model during infancy leads to several problems.

If there is a breakdown in an individual’s relationship with their attachment figure (primarily one’s mother), then the infant would suffer long-term negative consequences. Bowlby called his ideas on the importance of mother-child attachment and the lack thereof as the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis. Bowlby hypothesized that maternal deprivation occurred because of separation from or loss of one’s mother or a mother’s inability to develop an attachment with her infant. This attachment is crucial during the first two years of a child’s life. Bowlby predicted that children who were deprived of attachment (or had a sporadic attachment) would later exhibit delinquency, reduced intelligence, increased aggression, depression, and affectionless psychopathy—the inability to show affection or care about others.

In 1991, Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz expanded on Bowlby’s work, developing a scheme for understanding adult attachment.^[101] In this study, Bartholomew and Horowitz proposed a model for understanding adult attachment. On one end of the spectrum, you have an individual’s abstract image of themself as being either worthy of love and support or not. On the other end of the spectrum, you have an individual’s perception of whether another person will be trustworthy/available or another person is unreliable and rejecting. When you combine these dichotomies, you end up with four distinct attachment styles (as seen in Figure 3.11).

The first attachment style is labeled “secure,” because these individuals believe they are lovable and expect that others will behave in accepting and responsive ways within interpersonal interactions. Not surprisingly, individuals who are secure show the most satisfaction, commitment, and trust in their relationships. The second attachment style, preoccupied, occurs when someone does not perceive themselves as worthy of love but sees people as trustworthy and available for interpersonal relationships. These individuals would attempt to get others to accept them. The third attachment style, fearful (sometimes referred to as fearful avoidants),^[102] represents individuals who see themselves as unworthy of love and believe that others will react negatively through either deception or rejection. These individuals avoid interpersonal relationships to avoid being rejected by others. Even in communication, fearful people may avoid it because they believe others will not provide helpful information or that others will simply reject their attempts at communication. The final attachment style, dismissing, reflects those individuals who see themselves as worthy of love but believe that others will be deceptive and reject them in interpersonal relationships. These individuals avoid interpersonal relationships to protect themselves against the disappointment that can occur when placing too much trust in another person or making themselves vulnerable to rejection.

Rejection Sensitivity

Although no one likes to be rejected by others in interpersonal interactions, most of us differ from one another in how this rejection affects us as humans. We’ve all had our relational approaches (either by potential friends or dating partners) rejected at some point and know that it kind of sucks to be rejected. The idea that people differ in terms of their sensitivity to rejection was first discussed in the 1930s by the German psychoanalyst Karen Horney.^[103] Rejection sensitivity can be defined as the degree to which an individual expects to be rejected, readily perceives rejection when it occurs, and experiences an intensely adverse reaction to that rejection.

First, people who are highly sensitive to rejection expect that others will reject them. This expectation of rejection is based on a multitude of previous experiences in which the individual has faced genuine rejection. Hence, they assume that others will reject them.

Second, people highly sensitive to rejection are more adept at noting when they are being rejected; however, it’s not uncommon for these individuals to see rejection when it does not exist. Horney explains perceptions of rejection in this fashion:

It is difficult to describe the degree of their sensitivity to rejection. Change in an appointment, having to wait, failure to receive an immediate response, disagreement with their opinions, any noncompliance with their wishes, in short, any failure to fulfill their demands on their terms, is felt as a rebuff. And a rebuff not only throws them back on their basic anxiety, but it is also considered equivalent to humiliation.^[104]

As we can see from this brief description by Horney, rejection sensitivity can arise from even the slightest perceptions of being rejected.

Last, individuals who are highly sensitive to rejection react negatively when they perceive themselves as being rejected. This negative reaction can range from simply not engaging in future interactions to physical or verbal aggression. The link between the rejection and the negative reaction may not even be completely understandable to the individual. Horney explains, “More often the connection between feeling rebuffed and feeling irritated remains unconscious. This happens all the more easily since the rebuff may have been so slight as to escape conscious awareness. Then a person will feel irritable, or become spiteful and vindictive or feel fatigued or depressed or have a headache, without the remotest suspicion why.”^[105] Ultimately, individuals with high sensitivity to rejection can develop a “why bother” approach to initiating new relationships with others. This fear of rejection eventually becomes a self-induced handicap that prevents these individuals from receiving the affection they desire.

As with most psychological phenomena, this process typically proceeds through a series of stages. Horney explains that individuals suffering from rejection sensitivity tend to undergo an eight-step cycle:

1. Fear of being rejected.
2. Excessive need for affection (e.g., demands for exclusive and unconditional love).
3. When the need is not met, they feel rejected.
4. The individual reacts negatively (e.g., with hostility) to the rejection.
5. Repressed hostility for fear of losing the affection.
6. Unexpressed rage builds up inside.
7. Increased fear of rejection.
8. Increased need for relational reassurance from a partner.

Of course, as an individual’s need for relational reassurance increases, so does their fear of being rejected, and the perception of rejection spirals out of control.

As you may have guessed, there is a strong connection between John Bowlby’s attachment theory^{[106],[107],[108]} and Karen Horney’s theory of rejection sensitivity. Rejection sensitivity has several implications for interpersonal communication. In a study conducted by Geraldine Downey, Antonio Freitas, Benjamin Michaelis, and Hala Khouri, the researchers wanted to track high versus low rejection-sensitive individuals in relationships and how long those relationships lasted.^[109]The researchers also had the participants complete the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire created by Geraldine Downey and Scott Feldman.^[110] The study started by having couples keep diaries for four weeks, which helped the researchers develop a baseline perception of an individual’s sensitivity to rejection during the conflict. After the initial four-week period, the researchers revisited the participants one year later to assess their progress. Not surprisingly, high rejection-sensitive individuals were more likely to break up during the study than their low rejection-sensitivity counterparts.

Chapter Wrap-Up

Besides your personality, your biologically based temperament also plays an important role in how you interact with others interpersonally. As discussed in this chapter, your temperament is identifiable at birth, whereas, your personality is something that develops over your lifespan. Although we cannot change the biological aspects of our temperament, we can learn how to adjust our behaviors in light of our temperaments.

Chapter Exercises

Real-World Case Study

John’s mother, Kathleen, was 16 years old when he was born. Kathleen’s mother had died during her childbirth because she had refused to get cancer treatments, which could have harmed her unborn child. After Kathleen’s birth and her mother’s death, Kathleen’s father was always cold toward his daughter and often blamed her for his wife’s death.

When Kathleen entered her teenage years, she started acting out and started participating in several risky behaviors, which is how she ended up pregnant at 16. After John’s birth, Kathleen was ill-equipped to handle a child, let alone attempt to bond with a child. During John’s first two years of life, he was often dropped off at Kathleen’s friends’ houses or even her grandmother’s house, and then Kathleen would disappear for days. After two years of attempting to raise John, Kathleen’s grandmother convinced her to put her child up for adoption.

When John was two, he was adopted by Bobby and Priscilla Wright. The couple already had one child, Mikey, and they desperately wanted another child. Still, Priscilla could not have more children, so the addition of John to their family was very welcome. Although Bobby and Priscilla were amazing parents, John always felt somewhat disconnected.

In school, John rarely kept the same friends as he progressed through his education. He found it easy to leave one set of friends behind and create a new set wherever he went. He often found it odd when people remained friends with those they’d known since birth. This same pattern of behavior continued into adulthood, and John quickly found himself with a small circle of friends. Honestly, he was horrible at keeping up with his friends. It’s not that he didn’t like his friends, but he felt friends needed to fit into his schedule. As time passed, he quickly found himself with more acquaintances and fewer close relationships. Even his relationship with his family seemed remote and nonessential. He loved his family, but they were almost out of sight and out of mind since they lived on the other side of the country.

When John turned 40, he began trying to figure out why his social and relationship life was in such disarray. He wanted to have relationships with other people but didn’t know how.

1. Based on the information in the case, how would you characterize John in this story?
2. Apply John Bowlby’s theory of attachment to this story.
3. Apply Karen Horney’s theory of rejection sensitivity to this story.