Mini test 2 - 2

02 communications

Listen to a discussion in a communications class.

W: Let’s continue our discussion on the sociopsychological tradition in communication theory.

Just to help the flow of the discussion.

maybe we should recap some of the information we’ve already learned about it. So, what are the basic aims of sociopsychological tradition?

M: Um, well, I guess its goal is to figure out how a person as a communicator will act in a number of situations.

So what theorists are looking for are predictors, or signs, of how people will act in a situation when they need to communicate with others.

W: Thanks for your input. Is everybody pretty clear on what the sociopsychological tradition is then?

It’s all about how people act in a communicative situation… you know, when they have to communicate.

Good, then we can jump right into one of the two prevalent theories in sociopsychological theory: trait theory.

The best way to approach this theory is to first understand what I’m talking about when we refer to traits in this class.

Can anyone define what a trait is in communication theory?

M: A trait is a characteristic that a person will display pretty regularly−these are the parts of our personalities that are apparent to others.

W: Exactly! Traits help psychologists understand behaviors, and for communication theorists, it helps us interpret and study communication styles.

The interesting thing is that traits can often be used as predictors of how people will act in any given situation.

What are some examples of traits studied in communication theory?

M: Communication anxiety! And how about conversational narcissism?

W: Those are great examples. Really, there are hundreds of them, but I want to focus on one that has been studied extensively: argumentativeness.

When I say argumentativeness, most of you probably think that’s a negative trait, don’t you?

M: Sure. I guess I just can’t conceive of it not being negative. I mean, an argumentative person is probably hard to get along with and very hostile.

W: I’m glad you brought that up. Later in the lecture I’ll address those issues, but for now, let’s just say that argumentativeness is actually a positive trait as far as communication goes.

Argumentativeness is characterized by a willingness to engage in conversations about controversial topics.

Another characteristic of the argumentative trait is that the person is able to argue and support his or her points and refute the points of others.

This trait is a good predictor of a person who is open to learning, willing to listen to other points of view and build his or her own communication skills.

What else could we guess about a person with an argumentative trait?

M: That they are assertive?

W: Yes, exactly. Here, I have to make the distinction between a person who is argumentative and an assertive person.

Although assertiveness is part of the argumentative trait, please understand that an assertive person is not necessarily argumentative.

Do you know what I mean?

M: You mean because a person might be assertive and choose not to argue their points.

W: Yes, that’s right. And here’s something regarding this trait… this argumentative trait that I’d like to add. And it’s uh, well, it’s a little counterintuitive.

We talked a little bit about how someone might equate argumentativeness with aggression, but in communication theory there is actually a recognized difference between argumentativeness and verbal aggression. What do you all think the difference is?

M: Argumentativeness is a trait associated with effective communication while verbal aggression is what happens when someone cannot pull off being argumentative.

W: Uh huh, right. Let me give you an example. In a study, married couples were observed to see how their communication styles influenced the quality of their marriages.

Couples who were argumentative, that is, those that were able to argue effectively and reach compromises, were found to be less violent than couples who were not argumentative.

And, in fact, they found that the violent couples were on the whole much more verbally aggressive. Can anybody guess why this was so?

M: Right… right, makes sense. Um, it’s because verbally aggressive couples can’t verbally work out their differences.

So, basically, the idea is that the argumentativeness should balance out the tendency to be verbally aggressive, which can lead to violence.

7) Listen again to part of the discussion. Then answer the question.

Um, well, I guess its goal is to figure out how a person as a communicator will act in a number of situations.

So what theorists are looking for are predictors, or signs, of how people will act in a situation when they need to communicate with others.

Thanks for your input. Is everybody pretty clear on what the sociopsychological tradition is then?

It’s all about how people act in a communicative situation… you know, when they have to communicate.

Why does the professor say this:

Is everybody pretty clear on what the sociopsychological tradition is then?

8) Listen again to part of the discussion. Then answer the question.

Exactly! Traits help psychologists understand behaviors, and for communication theorists, it helps us interpret and study communication styles.

The interesting thing is that traits can often be used as predictors of how people will act in any given situation.

What are some examples of traits studied in communication theory? Why does the professor say this: The interesting thing is that traits can often be used as predictors of how people will act in any given situation.

9) What is the student’s opinion of the argumentative trait?

10) Listen again to part of the discussion. Then answer the question.

That they are assertive?

Yes, exactly. Here, I have to make the distinction between a person who is argumentative and an assertive person.

Although assertiveness is part of the argumentative trait, please understand that an assertive person is not necessarily argumentative.

Do you know what I mean?

What can be inferred from the professor’s response?

11) Listen again to part of the discussion. Then answer the question.

Yes, that’s right. And here’s something regarding this trait… this argumentative trait that I’d like to add. And it’s uh, well, it’s a little counterintuitive.

We talked a little bit about how someone might equate argumentativeness with aggression, but in communication theory there is actually a recognized difference between argumentativeness and verbal aggression. What do you all think the difference is?

what can be inferred about the professor when she says this: And here’s something regarding this trait… this argumentative trait that I’d like to add. And it’s uh, well, it’s a little counterintuitive.

12) What is the student’s opinion of the results of the study?