Communication Competence

Annegret F. Hannawa, Brian H. Spitzberg, Annegret F. Hannawa, Brian H. Spitzberg

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9783110395228
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Almost everything that matters to humans is derived from and through communication. Just because people communicate every day, however, does not mean that they are communicating competently. In fact, evidence indicates that there is a substantial need for better interpersonal skills among a significant proportion of the populace. Furthermore, "dark side" experiences in everyday life abound, and features of modern society pose new challenges that make the concept of communication competence increasingly complex. The Handbook of Communication Competence brings together scholars from across the globe to examine these various facets of communication competence, including its history, its essential components, and its applications in interpersonal, group, institutional, and societal contexts. The book provides a state-of-the-art review for scholars and graduate students, as well as practitioners in counseling, developmental, health care, educational, intercultural, and human resource management contexts, illustrating that communication competence is vital to health, relationships, and all collective human endeavors.

VI.Contexts

Tamara D. Afifi and Samantha Coveleski

13Relational competence

Abstract: Communication competence has generally been held as the ability to appropriately and effectively use communication to obtain a desired outcome or goal. Traditionally, the focus of communication competence has been on how behaviors and cognitions, such as cognitive complexity, empathy, role-taking, and interaction management, are enlisted for goal achievement. This chapter takes a “macro approach” to competence in relationships by first reviewing the operation of these fundamental behaviors and related cognitions in close relationships. Shifting, then, to a wider frame, we expand the traditional perspective to include a broader set of communication processes and remark on communication skills that could be considered relational competence. Focusing on those communication processes that influence the ability of individuals to acquire, develop, and maintain satisfying relationships, we situate relational competence as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Some of these processes, such as social support, affection, and information regulation vary from incompetent to competent depending on their use. Other communication processes, such as hurtful messages, verbal aggression, and violence, are more likely to be destructive and incompetent. What remains for future research is to disentangle the subtle differences in the characteristics of verbal and nonverbal messages that make them more or less skilled and functional as well as helpful or harmful.

Keywords: competence, relational competence, relationships, attachment, information management, hurtful messages, conflict, aggression

One might think it would be easy to describe what constitutes competence in relationships. Such a task, however, can be daunting because communication competence is ultimately what many communication scholars spend a lifetime trying to decipher. This task is particularly arduous because interpersonal interaction is the epitome of relationships and social integration (Spitzberg 2003). Being a competent communicator, therefore, is essential to developing and maintaining relationships, particularly healthy relationships. Being a competent communicator could ultimately determine whether a relationship survives, let alone flourishes. Competence also reveals itself in many different communicative behaviors in relationships. Some of these behaviors, however, could arguably be more central to the notion of competence than others.

In this chapter, we take a “macro approach” to competence in relationships by outlining some of the fundamental behaviors and related cognitions that comprise competence in close relationships. We then expand the traditional focus of communication competence to other communication skills in close relationships that could be considered a part of the realm of relational competence. Relational competence involves the ability to “facilitate the acquisition, development, and maintenance of mutually satisfying relationships” (Hansson, Jones, and Carpenter 1984: 273). Although the communication patterns that create and maintain mutually satisfying relationships are varied, we provide examples of central communication skills that have been shown to affect people’s ability to maintain healthy close relationships. Determining what constitutes a mutually satisfying relationship is also difficult because it can involve characteristics like relationship duration, trust, happiness, closeness, satisfaction, and commitment. Most of these characteristics, however, revolve around the idea of relational quality. Relational competence involves communication skills or communication competencies that allow people to maintain quality relationships. As such, we begin by discussing the broader notion of communication competence in relationships and how these skills are developed. After providing this foundation, we explore other essential communication skills, such as social support, affection, and conflict management, and their functionality in relationships.

1Traditional conceptualizations of communication competence

1.1Communication competence and related skills

Communication competence is a complex concept to define. While its complexity can prove problematic for research, understanding its sophistication is an essential tool for untangling relational communication phenomena. In general, communication competence is people’s ability to appropriately and effectively use communication to obtain a desired outcome or goal (Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach 1994). Communication competence is typically situationally determined (Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach 1994). But, it can also constitute a larger set of communication “traits” that are relatively stable across situations (see Merrill and Afifi 2012). Literature associated with competence can be categorized around seven conceptual clusters (fundamental competence, social competence, interpersonal competence, linguistic competence, communicative competence, and social skills (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984) with each emphasizing a different aspect of competence. The clusters vary in their conceptualization of competence and their number and overlap demonstrate the potential for competence to become unclear and nebulous.

Competence, itself, can be understood as an ability and a quality (Spitzberg 1993). As an ability, competence is the capacity of a person to enable the repeated performance of goal-directed behavioral routines. As a quality, competence is the evaluation of several criteria of a behavioral performance (i.e., dialogical criteria, clarity, understanding, efficiency, satisfaction, effectiveness, and appropriateness; Spitzberg 2003) or a person’s capacity for this behavioral performance. Competence also serves three essential roles in relationships (Spitzberg 1993). First, as an ability, competence fundamentally facilitates the development and management of relationships. As such, those who are skilled in relational competence have an advantage in relationships. Second, as an evaluation, competence plays a mediating role between the behavior itself and a person’s reaction to that behavior. How a person reacts to an actor’s behavior is dependent on a person’s evaluation of the actor’s communication competence. This means that the perception of competence is a vital component in relationship initiation and maintenance. The third role of competence in relationships is its manifestation in the self’s evaluations of one’s own competence, or “self-competence” (Spitzberg 1993: 138). The degree to which a person perceives him- or herself to be competent in a given interaction will determine the person’s decisions regarding pursuit and management of goals. Interestingly, people often rate their own competence higher than the ratings provided by their interaction partners (Alicke and Govorun 2005; Canary and Spitzberg 1990).

While conceptualizing competence serves an orienting purpose, doing so begs the question: What are the sources of competence? According to Spitzberg and Canary (1984), four constructs represent the underlying processes of competence: cognitive complexity, empathy, role-taking, and interaction management. Cognitive complexity is rooted in the constructivist approach to communication (Delia, O’Keefe, and O’Keefe 1982). The assumption is that people organize what they know and experience into cognitive schemata. In communication, the schemata of importance are referred to as interpersonal constructs (Delia, O’Keefe, and O’Keefe 1982). They use these constructs as a filter, base, and referent for evaluating and interacting with the world around them. Cognitive complexity is the number, abstractness, and interrelatedness of these interpersonal constructs. As people’s cognitive complexity increases, their ability to make differentiated and complex interpretations of relational situations increases. These cognitive skills are essential for becoming interpersonally competent (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984). Even when individuals are rated high in cognitive complexity, however, other factors, such as being emotionally upset or cognitively taxed, can impair their ability to evaluate messages (Bodie et al. 2011). In light of this, competent relational communication cannot be studied in the isolated individual nor in ignorance of their potential for being able to adequately process messages (Burleson 2010).

Empathy and role-taking are often used interchangeably, but Spitzberg (1980) distinguishes empathy as an emotional reaction to, or affective experience of, another person’s emotional state. Role-taking is conceptualized separately as the cognitive construction of another person’s role in order to manage interactions. However, as the terms are related, they together represent the “adaptiveness” quality of competence (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984: 45). By taking the role of others, even at a young age, one develops interpersonal constructs that permits more comprehensive adjustment to one’s interaction partner (Hale 1980). Indeed, the ability to empathize is often a crucial part of relational competence (see Davis and Oathout 1987).

Interaction management is the ability to handle the procedural aspects of structuring and maintaining a conversation (Wiemann 1977). Very similar to aspects of control, interaction management includes actions such as topic negotiation, turn taking, entering and exiting interactions, and handling topical development smoothly (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984). Even though this explication of constructs underlying competence assumes that behaviors can be reproduced, it is important to understand that competence is a context-specific phenomenon (e.g., Spitzberg 1991).

1.2Multiple goals and social influence

Although communication in relationships is a complex and messy process, some order can be brought to the chaos if interaction is assumed to be goal-directed. Whenever people communicate, they rely on goals and plans (Kellermann 1992). More often than not, people juggle their own desires and intentions with those of spouses, dating partners, family members, and friends. This negotiation often takes place in communicative encounters. Given that competence typically is considered the capacity to perform an appropriate behavior effectively for a particular purpose within a particular situation, evaluations of competence hinge on the identification of the interactants’ goals, plans, and eventual actions. Relational competence is judged according to how individuals balance their goals and plans with those of others. This assumption is especially salient in goals-plans-actions (GPA) theories.

GPA theories conceptualize message production as a three-step process in which goals form plans, which manifest in externally executed actions. Goals are future states of affairs that an individual is committed to achieving or maintaining (Dillard 1997). Plans are cognitive representations of behaviors that are intended to enable goal attainment (Berger 1997). Actions are the behaviors enacted in an effort to realize a goal (Dillard 2008). Communication competence in GPA theories is exhibited in the message production process as one manages situational ambiguity, increasing complexity of plans, plan modification, and goal multiplicity (Wilson and Sabee 2003). As the number of goals increases, the complexity of plans and planning increases (Dillard 2008). Competent communicators are able to quickly format a plan and take action in ambiguous situations. They also are able to handle complex plans that are subject to change either before interaction, after an interaction, or while an interaction is taking place (Berger 1997). Focusing on message production, GPA theories assume competent communicators have an “anticipatory mindset” (Wilson and Sabee 2003: 23) That is, they are able to recognize the effectiveness of their actions and revise their plans before and during interaction in order to maximize the potential for goal achievement.

Before interaction begins, goals drive the initial cognitive processes. Commonly occurring in relational communication, desired future states of affairs become interactional goals when the desired state requires compliance and approval of others (Wilson and Morgan 2006). In order to realize their goals, individuals must engage in communication and coordination with others. Of the seven common primary goals identified in interpersonal influence research (Dillard 2008), Wilson and Morgan (2006) note that four goals, specifically, frame the interactions in close relationship: giving advice, obtaining assistance, convincing others to share an activity, and eliciting support for a third party. Secondary goals are related to the primary goal in that they exist only because of the primary goal, but they may, and often are, contradictory to the primary goal (Dillard 2008).

People attempt to accomplish multiple goals through interaction (Dillard and Knobloch 2011). Although the pursuit of multiple conflicting goals is distressing and drains cognitive resources (Kahneman 2003), being perceived as communicatively competent often depends on one’s ability to manage multiple goals (Wilson and Sabee 2003). Managing multiple goals is essential to avoiding relational conflicts that might arise from departing from any one of five categories of secondary goals: a) identity goals, or desires to act consistently with one’s beliefs, morals, and values; b) interaction goals, or desires to maintain a positive self image, to avoid other people losing “face”, and to say things that are relevant and coherent in light of the larger conversation; c) relational resource goals, or desires to maintain valued relationships; d) personal resource goals, or desires to avoid unnecessary risking or wasting one’s time, money, or safety; and e) arousal-management, or desires to avoid or reduce anxiety or nervousness (Dillard, Segrin, and Harden 1989). For example, one spouse is skilled at cleaning and would like to give her less-skilled partner advice on how to wash dishes more effectively. The more skilled spouse’s primary goal is to give advice, but her secondary goal could be to avoid threatening her partner’s “face”. Another secondary goal could be that the more skilled spouse desires to act consistently with hi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Titel
• Impressum
• Inhalt
• Vorwort
• I. Introduction
• II. Paradigms and perspectives
• III. Codes
• IV. Components
• V. Personal factors
• VI. Contexts
• VII. Intervention and assessment
• VIII. The dark side of communication competence
• IX. Epilogue
• Biographical sketches
• Subject index
• Author index
• Fußnoten