Comm330 Exam2

Front 1

deception

Back 1

intentionally managing verbal and/or nonverbal messages so that the target will believe or understand something in a way that the deciever knows is false
(always INTENTIONAL)

Front 2

lies

Back 2

(aka falsifications or fabrications) involve making up information or giving info that is not the truth

Front 3

equivocaion

Back 3

(aka evasion) involves making an indirect, or contradictory statement
--not really answering the question

Front 4

concealment

Back 4

(aka omission) people omit info they know is important
--not lying, just not telling

Front 5

exaggeration

Back 5

(aka overstatement) stretching the truth to make themselves look better/spice up the story
--EX: job interviews

Front 6

minimizations

Back 6

(aka understatements) people downplay aspects of the truth
--EX: saying you didnt do very well on an exam, when you really failed

Front 7

partner-focused motives

Back 7

using deception to avoid hurting the partner, to help them maintain self-esteem, to avoid worrying partner

Front 8

self-focused motives

Back 8

wanting to enhance or protect your self-image or trying to avoid anger, embarassment, critisism
--SELFISH reasons

Front 9

relationship-focused motives

Back 9

wants to eliminate relational harm by avoiding conflict or unpleasant experience

Front 10

behavioral familiarity

Back 10

knowing a person's normal behavior and communication style to detect if they are acting different and decieving

Front 11

attachment

Back 11

effectional bond or relatively or relatively enduring bond in which the partner is important as a unique individual, interchangeable with none other

Front 12

attachment style

Back 12

a social interaction style that is consistent with the type and quality of relationship one wishes to share with others, based on working models of self and others

Front 13

secure attachment style

Back 13

children tend to have responsive and warm parents, recieve moderate levels of stimulation, interaction with caregivers, children cry when parent leaves
--parents tend to find the "goodness of fit" some children need more cuddling, etc.

Front 14

avoidant attachment style

Back 14

children have caregivers who are insensitive or trying too hard to please- usually either over- or understimulated- their needs are not being met- they do not cry when parent leaves

Front 15

anxious-ambivalent attachment style

Back 15

inconsistent behavior or caregivers (responsive at times, unresponsive at others-ex: busy w/ divorce, alcohol)- children develop doubt and insecurity- they often protest when parent leaves but are angry when they come back

Front 16

preoccupieds

Back 16

have positive models of others but negative models of themselves- overdependent on relationships- try to gain approval of others and feel unworthy

Front 17

fearful avoidants

Back 17

have negative models of themselves and others- they are afraid of hurt/rejection- they want to depend on ppl but find it difficult

Front 18

dismissives

Back 18

have positive models of themselves and negative models of others- they are so self-sufficient that they shun others away- defense mechanism to feel good about self and avoid critisism- dont feel need for intimate relationships- often controlling

Front 19

theory of self

Back 19

involves self-esteem (how negatively or positively we view ourselves) and identidy(who we are and what we are like)

Front 20

halo effect

Back 20

the tendency to overgeneralize someones positive qualities based on attractive physical appearance

Front 21

positive affect cues

Back 21

convey warmth and pleasantness

Front 22

immediacy cues

Back 22

behaviors that signal availability and interest in interaction (gaze, closeness, forward lean, open body positions)

Front 23

self-expansion theory

Back 23

1) people try to expand themselves
2) people enter relationships to expand their identidy
3) a relationship's success depends on the ability of the relationship to expand the partners experiences and sense of self

Front 24

dramaturgical perspective

Back 24

we continually enact performances that are geared for particular audiences, w/ the purpose of advancing an image that is beneficial to us

Front 25

front stage

Back 25

where our performances are inacted and our behaviors are observed by an audience

Front 26

back stage

Back 26

where we can let our guard down and not have to think about staying in character

Front 27

politeness theory

Back 27

focuses on specific ways that people manage face using communication

Front 28

positive face

Back 28

the favorable image that people portray to others and hope to have validated by others

Front 29

negative face

Back 29

the perception that a person can do what he or she wants without having to worry about others' reactions

Front 30

preventive facework

Back 30

efforts to avoid or minimize potential face threat (ex: could be disclaimers)

Front 31

corrective facework

Back 31

efforts to repair the identidy already damaged...could be after something embarassing
**6 types: avoidance, humor, apologies, accounts, physical demediation, aggression

Front 32

content messages

Back 32

what is actually said about the topic

Front 33

relational messages

Back 33

cues that tell us what sort of a message a content message is because of who is saying it/how its being said

Front 34

relational definitions

Back 34

give us an overall sense of who we are to one another

Front 35

relational culture

Back 35

if 2 people develop common orientations and behaviors

Front 36

relational contract

Back 36

the "rules" of a relationship, even if they are not stated

Front 37

relational themes

Back 37

dominance-submission, emotional arousal, composure, similarity, formality, task-social orientation, intimacy

Front 38

one-up messages

Back 38

a dominant message that indicates a desire to take control or limit the action of others

Front 39

one-down messages

Back 39

messages that indicate the desire to give in in an arguement

Front 40

one-across messages

Back 40

messages indicating equivalence or failing to imply control

Front 41

affection-hostility

Back 41

how far somone can be pushed before affection turns to annoyance

Front 42

depth-superficiality

Back 42

the extent to which partners are willing to give each other access to personal information

Front 43

inclusion-exclusion

Back 43

indicate the willingness to associate with others

Front 44

confirming messages

Back 44

repsonses from other people that make us value ourselves more

Front 45

disconfirming messages

Back 45

responses from other people that make us devalue ourselves

Front 46

paradoxical definitions

Back 46

speakers present themselves in contradictory ways--"i am a liar" if they really are a liar, then they are telling the truth

Front 47

paradoxical injunction

Back 47

an impossible order- you must disobey to obey--"Stop giving in to me!" if you stop, then you are giving in to their command

Front 48

double blind

Back 48

there is no "correct" reponse--father tells teen to be more independent but then tries to draw them back in when they do

Front 49

Palo Alto group

Back 49

these researchers wanted to know why some relationships were so destructive--they felt they could find the answer through communication

Front 50

complementary patterns

Back 50

when the acts in a sequence are opposite, a repeated pattern of one-ups and one-downs

Front 51

symmetrical patterns

Back 51

a pattern consisting of acts that are similar
*competitive symmetry=all one-ups
*submissive symmetry=all one-downs

Front 52

spiral

Back 52

when the actions of each party intensify the actions of the other

Front 53

unwanted repetitive patterns (URPs)

Back 53

participants feel out of control, everytime you got together a fight would occur

Front 54

empathy

Back 54

the ability to spontaneously identify with another on a direct emotional level

Front 55

perspective-taking

Back 55

how the other percieves himself, his situation, and his emotions

Front 56

civility

Back 56

an activity which protects people from each other and yet allows them to enjoy each other's company

Front 57

filtering theory

Back 57

when and how we use the verbal and nonverbal cues of other to determine their attractiveness as a relational partner
(1) sociological or incidental cues (2) pre-interaction cues (3) interaction cues (4) cognitive cues

Front 58

reciprocal liking

Back 58

we are often attracted to ppl simply because they have shown an attraction to you

Front 59

position

Back 59

a social label that tell ppl who we are, what our duties and rights are, and where we stand in comparison to others

Front 60

role rigidity

Back 60

when a role takes over one's identidy..they can't get out of a certain role

Front 61

looking-glass self

Back 61

the self that comes to us through others..how you are from the outside/how ppl treat you

Front 62

social comparison theory

Back 62

when people turn to other people to see how their opinions and abilities stack up

Front 63

self-perception theory

Back 63

one way to learn about who we are in through self-observation

Front 64

line

Back 64

verbal and nonverbal behaviors we use during performance

Front 65

personal front

Back 65

costume, makeup, physical characteristics, gestures

Front 66

back region

Back 66

the private area where social actors can escape the critical eye of their audience

Front 67

role distance

Back 67

we find a way to let others know that the roles we play do not completely define us

Front 68

role sets

Back 68

others who help put on a given performance (ex: for a rock star- band members, bodyguards, groupies)

Front 69

altercasting

Back 69

picking people to have relationships with to make yourself look better, or to define yourself the way you want to look

Front 70

mirroring

Back 70

following the lead of a partner (opposite of altercasting)

Front 71

mutual negotiation

Back 71

both characters work together to contruct roles that are mutually satisfactory

Front 72

intergroup uncertainty reduction

Back 72

several different conditions that make it more likely that uncertianty will be reduced in intercultural interactions

Front 73

predicted outcome theory

Back 73

if you like someone, that person has a positive outcome value

Front 74

dialectics theory

Back 74

ppl have opposing interpersonal needs--ppl want to be close and connected to others, but they also want to be independent

Front 75

uncertainty in illness theory

Back 75

ppl would rather not know information then know bad information (ex: ppl would rather not know if they have an STD, so they don't get tested

Front 76

expenctancy violation theory

Back 76

ex: occurs when your expect your best friend to be happy for you because you won an award, and instead they are frowning

Front 77

predictive expectancies

Back 77

tell ppl what to expect in a given situation based on what normally occurs in that situation

Front 78

prescriptive expectancies

Back 78

tell ppl what to expect based on general rules of approprateness

Front 79

communicator characteristics

Back 79

ex: you would expect an old woman to be more polite than a teenage boy

Front 80

social emotions

Back 80

developed age 3/4 (jealousy, embarassment, guilt, shame) w/o these emotions everyone would be out of control

Front 81

working consensus

Back 81

where audience and performer can agree on definition of the situation...not set in stone

Front 82

expression given

Back 82

what the performer wants the audience to feel (ex eminem giving finger)

Front 83

expression given-off

Back 83

what performer does NOT intend for the audience to see (ex eminem looking scared in jail) *TRUER than expression given

Front 84

impervious response

Back 84

parent completely ignores what child said..child feels like they don't exist

Front 85

tangential response

Back 85

very brief "thats nice" then change the subject

Front 86

impervious response

Back 86

parent completely ignores what child said..child feels like they don't exist

Front 87

incongruous response

Back 87

WORST response...things not going together- Dad beating you and saying "I'm doing this because i love you"

Front 88

impervious response

Back 88

parent completely ignores what child said..child feels like they don't exist

Front 89

the dismissing parent

Back 89

treats children as if their feelings are not important, try tomake emotion go away by ignoring them and shaming them b/c parent cant handle it

Front 90

tangential response

Back 90

very brief "thats nice" then change the subject

Front 91

the disapproving parent

Back 91

punishes children for showing negative emotions

Front 92

incongruous response

Back 92

WORST response...things not going together- Dad beating you and saying "I'm doing this because i love you"

Front 93

the dismissing parent

Back 93

treats children as if their feelings are not important, try tomake emotion go away by ignoring them and shaming them b/c parent cant handle it

Front 94

tangential response

Back 94

very brief "thats nice" then change the subject

Front 95

incongruous response

Back 95

WORST response...things not going together- Dad beating you and saying "I'm doing this because i love you"

Front 96

the disapproving parent

Back 96

punishes children for showing negative emotions

Front 97

the dismissing parent

Back 97

treats children as if their feelings are not important, try tomake emotion go away by ignoring them and shaming them b/c parent cant handle it

Front 98

the disapproving parent

Back 98

punishes children for showing negative emotions