The Routledge Handbook of Positive Communication

Contributions of an Emerging Community of Research on Communication for Happiness and Social Change

José Antonio Muñiz Velázquez, Cristina M. Pulido, José Antonio Muñiz Velázquez, Cristina M. Pulido

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351801591
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Werbung

The Routledge Handbook of Positive Communication forms a comprehensive reference point for cross-disciplinary approaches to understanding the central role of communication in the construction of hedonic and eudemonic happiness, or subjective and psychological well-being. Including contributions from internationally recognized authors in their respective fields, this reference uses as its focus five main scenarios where communication affects the life of individuals: mass and digital media, advertising and marketing communication, external and internal communication in companies and organizations, communication in education, and communication in daily life interactions.

Part I
Positive Interpersonal Communication

4
The Future of Positive Interpersonal Communication Research

Thomas J. Socha

This landmark volume stands as compelling evidence that adding the adjective “positive” to communication matters. This simple addition has not only stimulated new and important research but serves as a clarion call to communication scholars of all stripes to join the study communication’s higher purposes. Following the lead of positive psychology (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; and see Socha, 2009), early efforts to understand positive interpersonal communication featured studies of aesthetic relating (Baxter, Norwood, & Nebel, 2012), synchrony (Kim, 2012), forgiveness (Kelley, 2012; Waldron & Kelley, 2008), and other similar topics considered to be “positive” (Socha & Pitts, 2012). Other efforts highlighted important connections between positive interpersonal communication, health, and wellness (Pitts & Socha, 2013), specifically links between positive interpersonal communication, stress management, cardiovascular benefits, and overall emotional well-being (Sullivan, 2013). Mirivel (2014) created a groundbreaking conceptual model of positive interpersonal communication featuring a set of message behaviors regarded typically to be positive: “greeting, asking, complimenting, disclosing, encouraging, listening, and inspiring” (p. 7). Finally, grounded in the psychology of needs-satisfaction (Sheldon, 2009) and contrasted with the darkside of interpersonal communication (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007), Socha and Beck (2015) framed positive interpersonal communication as “message processes that facilitate human needs-satisfaction” (p. 188). According to Socha and Beck messages like compliments, encouragements, and similar others function as positive interpersonal communication when they seek to facilitate the satisfaction of human needs such as belongingness, love, esteem, self-actualization and more, whereas messages like insults, denigrations, and similar others function as darkside interpersonal communication when they seek to inhibit, frustrate, or deny fellow humans needs-satisfaction.

This chapter offers an added refinement to the evolving conceptual framing of positive interpersonal communication by arguing the merits of theorizing positive interpersonal communication (and for that matter all forms of positive communication) as a pattern of interpersonal communication patterns—a metapattern (Bateson, 1979; Volk, 1995). That is, it is useful theoretically to conceptualize the binaries of positive/negative and brightness/darkness (e.g., see Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Socha & Pitts, 2012) as patterns of interpersonal communication patterns—metapatterns. Both positive interpersonal communication and darkside interpersonal communication exist in everyday interpersonal discourse as patterns of interpersonal communication patterns. And potentially, any given interpersonal communication pattern can be framed, understood, and experienced at a meta-level as positive, dark, or in many shades of gray. In this chapter I will further explicate the notion of positive interpersonal communication as a metapattern and will close by suggesting a few new pathways for the future of positive interpersonal communication research that includes urging interpersonal communication scholars to give greater research attention to studying positive interpersonal communication in the pursuit of “good” relationships (see Waldron & Kelley, 2015), higher purposes, and higher selves.

Positive Conceptual Ground

Positive Interpersonal Communication at Metapattern

In the prologue of Metapatterns: Across Space, Time, and Mind, Tyler Volk (1995), an NYU professor of biology and environmental studies, suggested three ways to define the term “canoe.” Let’s follow Volk but instead examine an abbreviated chronology of past attempts to define positive interpersonal communication. According to Volk, one way to define positive interpersonal communication (and canoes) would be to identify and describe its elements. That is, we could pinpoint and agree on unique kinds of verbal messages, gestures, qualities of messages, and so on, that could distinguish “positive” interpersonal communication from darkside interpersonal communication as well as other shades-of-gray communicative forms.

Socha and Pitts (2012), for example, sought to do this by gathering a group of interpersonal communication scholars to describe and illuminate the qualities of topics that were defined a priori to be examples of “positive” interpersonal communication like humorous communication (Meyer, 2012), communication excellence (Mirivel, 2012), celebratory support (McCullough & Burleson, 2012), and more. This work drew attention to many kinds of communicative forms defined linguistically and a priori as “positive.” However, drawing lines that neatly demarcate what is “positive” and what is “dark” is not easy or straightforward.

“Humor,” for instance, in common vernacular is defined as a unique type of positive communicative and humor abilities are a welcomed quality of communicators in personal and social relationships. Laughing and smiling are desirable behaviors and serve as indicators of marital satisfaction (Spanier, 1976). However, “making fun” (prosocial) and “making fun of” (antisocial) are different humorous processes that may or may not function as positive interpersonal communication by facilitating needs-satisfaction of physiological, belongingness, and leisure needs (Max-Neef, 1992). For example, “roasting,” is a kind of ritualized making-fun-of that is intended to be interpreted as a kind of playful communication episode and its messages to be in-good-fun (prosocial and positive). However, roasting can also be interpreted as darkside interpersonal communication. For example, President Donald Trump did not see the humor in the roasting that was to take place at the annual 2017 White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) and declined to be the guest of honor (the first US president since Ronald Regan to do so) (see Crouch, 2017; Ohlheiser & Yahr, 2017). The replacement guest of honor speaker, Hasan Minhaj, was asked (tongue-in-cheek) to not roast the president or his administration, but of course could not resist temptation (see Borchers, 2017). Whether “roasting” functions as positive interpersonal communication, darkside interpersonal communication, or shades-of-gray interpersonal communication may not be easily or clearly determined, but is nonetheless consequential in the impression formation processes of others and relationships.

Another example of conceptual difficulties encountered in deciding a priori what is positive and what is dark can be seen in the terms Mirivel (2014) selected for his model of positive talk—greeting, asking, complimenting, disclosing, encouraging, listening, and inspiring. Mirivel’s model is groundbreaking, heuristic, conceptually sound, and a very useful instructional tool. However, like humor, sometimes, some of these positive message processes can also serve dark functions. That is, although “encouraging” is, by definition, positive it also depends on what is being encouraged. For example, a stalking victim may inadvertently communicate “encouragement” to a stalker by sharing even a causal “greeting” (e.g., see Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001). A more dramatic example is Seattle commuters stuck in morning traffic shouting “encouraging” messages of “Just do it!” to a woman who was about to jump off a bridge to her death (Restivo, 2017). In theory, any of Mirivel’s messages may typically serve positive interpersonal communication functions if they are communicated as customarily intended. However, going forward, positive interpersonal communication researchers should also consider the power of the darkside to highjack even the most positive of messages for ill intent and dark (needs-inhibiting) purposes.

It is left to future positive interpersonal communication research to examine the qualities of patterns of interpersonal communication that communicators find to be “positive” and facilitate needs-satisfaction and uncover the rules and explanations shaping this form of discourse. That is, what is making a given message “positive?” Some messages at face may be widely understood, a priori, as “positive.” However, they may also be high-jacked by the darkside. For example, “compliments” are discursively “positive.” But compliments may be high-jacked to serve dark-side communicative functions like when a manager of an accounting department says to an interviewee for an accounting job, “Nice ______!” If the manager uses the term “resume” after nice, the message is likely to be perceived and accepted as a situationally appropriate compliment (positive interpersonal communication). But, if instead the manager uses the term “legs” (or for that matter any body part) after the word “nice,” although its form could still be interpreted linguistically as a “compliment,” it is more likely that it will also be interpreted as situationally inappropriate and as function as sexual harassment. Further, how an accounting job interviewee chooses to respond to the accounting manager’s “compliment” if the term legs was used, further illustrates the complexities of trying to positively manage encroaching darkside interpersonal communication episodes. For example, the interviewee may say: (a) “Thanks”; (b) “Thanks, your legs are nice too”; (c) “Excuse me, but that was inappropriate”; or (d) “Thank you, but this interview is over.” Response (b) suggests that the “compliment” was also viewed as “flirting” and is being reciprocated; (c) and (d) interpret the “compliment” as dark; while (a) remains somewhat ambiguous insofar as it responds in a linguistically appropriate way by acknowledging it as a compliment but leaving vague whether it is seen as dark or not.

Research on positivity (e.g., Fredrickson, 2001, 2009) and marital communication (Gottman, 1993), show that darkside interpersonal messages exert considerable force on the perceptions and enactments of self as well as relationships on the order of at least three to one (i.e., according to Fredrickson, 2001, it takes at least three positive messages to balance the effects of one negative message). Thus, the power of the darkside must always be considered when studying that which is positive. Further, it remains an empirical question whether a three-to-one positive to negative ratio has found its way across communication contexts (groups, organizations, society).

Enactments of the term “positive,” like all messages, create social realities that are co-constructed by communicators which in turn may or may not serve positive functions. It is up to interpersonal communication scholars to conduct ground-level research to understand the processes by which communicators are creating “positive” as well as “dark” worlds for themselves. Also, definitional research efforts are important to identifying initial sensitizing concepts for future study.

A second way Volk suggests to define positive interpersonal communication is to describe what positive interpersonal communication does or its functions. Socha and Beck (2015) took this approach when they theorized that positive interpersonal messages function as a means of needs-satisfaction. Although Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is most famous, Socha and Beck also cited the work of Max-Neef (1992) who created an elaborate model of eight basic human needs (and associated qualities of being): (1) subsistence (e.g., physical, mental health), (2) protection (e.g., care, accountability), (3) affection (e.g., respect, sense of humor), (4) understanding (e.g., critical capacity, curiosity), (5) participation (e.g., adaptedness, dedication), (6) leisure (e.g., curiosity, tranquility), (7) creation (e.g., imagination, curiosity), and (8) identity (sense of belonging, self-esteem). Of special interest to interpersonal communication studies is that Max-Neef also associated “doing” qualities to each of these eight needs: (1) subsistence (e.g., feeding, resting, working), (2) protection (e.g., cooperating, planning, caring), (3) affection (e.g., sharing, love-making), (4) understanding (e.g., analyzing, investigating), (5) participation (e.g., affiliating, proposing, dissenting), (6) leisure (e.g., daydreaming, recalling, fantasizing), (7) creation (e.g., inventing, designing, composing), and (8) identity (e.g., integrating, understanding self, actualizing self). Some of these “doing” qualities are clearly communicative (e.g., sharing, proposing, dissenting), while all the rest in some way rely on communication.

With respect to the study of needs, it is assumed that: (a) needs are essential to human survival and quality of living, (b) having unmet needs is motivating or creates drive states, and (c) needs-satisfaction is “positive.” Further, having lingering, unmet needs (deprivation) because of processes preventing needs-satisfaction is undesirable (or dark) as illustrated by Ted Robert Gurr’s (1970) landmark book, Why Men Rebel, that argues the roots of human conflict and rebellion are planted in deprivation. Socha and Beck theorized connections between interpersonal communication and human needs-satisfaction by arguing that interpersonal communication which seeks to facilitate needs-satisfaction would be regarded as “positive” and that which seeks to inhibit needs-satisfaction would be regarded as darkside interpersonal communication. Socha and Beck also offered suggestions of specific communication processes that potentially can serve either positive or darkside interpersonal communication functions as related to levels of human needs, for example: communicating celebratory support vs. insulting can be related to esteem/respect/pride needs; affinity-seeking vs. bullying can be related to belongingness/participation/social support needs; and honesty vs. lying can be related to safety/security/protection needs.

A related-question about positive and darkside interpersonal communication and needs-satisfaction pertains to limits. How good (or bad) can interpersonal communication as well relationships get? Socha and Stoyneva (2014) pointed out that past empirical interpersonal communication research has focused on middling interpersonal outcomes described using anchor terms like “satisfying” and avoided studying communication that is “euphoric,” “rapturous,” or “organismic.” They suggest that part of the explanation is that “satisfaction,” like most psychosocial and communicative variables, is commonplace, whereas “ecstatic” is occasional, fleeting, and probably an unsusta...