4.2 Intergroup Theorizing

4.2.1 Communication Accommodation Theory

Varying communicative styles are reflections of personalities, roles, temperaments, and social identities.

Communication Accommodation theory (CAT) explains why we communicate differently with different people (i.e., our communication choices change based on the relational, identity we engage in).

Accommodation is “a process concerned with how we can reduce (and, in some cases, even magnify) communicative differences between people in interaction” (L. Baxter and Braithwaite 2008, 237). It “enhances interpersonal similarities, and reduces uncertainties about the other” (L. Baxter and Braithwaite 2008, 237). Speakers will be seen as more competent and credible (Aune and Kikuchi 1993). Accommodation manifests via convergence in language (i.e., dialect), nonverbal cues (e.g., speech rate, posture) (Li 2001). Those with more social power are often accommodated. (however, I think less social power should be accommodated, for example, patients and doctors, benefactors and beneficiaries)

Nonaccommodacaiton can signal lack of respect or liking to the other person (could be intentional or unintentional), or authenticity. Divergence signal membership in groups, culture, and communities (their social identity).

Symmetricality and accommodation lead to strengthened interpersonal relations, and vice versa.

Principles of accommodation:

  1. Speakers will, up to an optimal level, increasingly accommodate the communicative patterns believed characteristic of their interactants the more they wish to

    1. Signal positive face and empathy

    2. Elicit the other’s approval, respect, understanding, trust, compliance, and cooperation

    3. Develop a closer relationship

    4. Defuse a potentially volatile situation

    5. Signal common social identities

  2. When attributed (typically) with positive intent, patterns of perceived accommodation increasingly and cumulatively enhance recipients’

    1. Self-esteem;

    2. Task, interactional, and job satisfaction;

    3. Favorable images of the speaker’s group, fostering the potential for partnerships to achieve common goals;

    4. Mutual understanding, felt supportiveness, and life satisfaction;

    5. Attributions of speaker politeness, empathy, competence, benevolence, and trust.

  3. Speakers will (other interactional motives notwithstanding) increasingly nonaccommodate (e.g., diverge from) the communicative patterns believed characteristic of their interactants, the more they wish to signal (or promote)

    1. Relational dissatisfaction or disaffection with and disrespect for the others’ traits, demeanor, actions, or social identities.
  4. When attributed with (usually) harmful intent, patterns of perceived nonaccommodation (e.g., divergence) will be

    1. Evaluated unfavorably as unfriendly, impolite, or communicatively incompetent;

    2. Reacted to negatively by recipients (e.g., recipients will perceive speaker to be lacking in empathy and trust)

CAT absorbs both interpersonal and intergroup process, even though they are considered orthogonal.

Application:

(Chen et al. 2016)

  • The characteristics of their communication partner (mediated by specific communication behaviors imagined by the participant for two of the three trait dimensions such as overaccommodation for perceptions of competence, humorous communication for perceptions of sociability) influences participants’ stereotypes of older adult

    • overaccommendation can be seemed patronizing, which reinforces stereotypes
  • Imagined interaction involves individuals’ spontaneous thoughts regarding interpersonal communication with a real person, which typically occurs before an actual interaction with the person (Honeycutt 2014).

  • based on stereotype content model (SCM), groups are stereotyped based on two dimensions: warmth and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick 2007). Later warmth was further segmented into sociability and morality (i.e., trustworthiness)

4.2.2 Communication Theory of Identity

Stem from psychology and sociology in the 50s and 60s. “Similar to the psychological tradition, the self was still most often discussed in unitary terms with social roles reserved for the various different manifestations” (L. Baxter and Braithwaite 2008, 254).

There isn’t one core genuine self, but multiple selves (i.e., multiple identities). Self emerges out of one’s social interactions and the perceptions of others (Stryker, McCall, and Simmons 1979).

Identity/Communication (identity is not separable from communication) leads to communication satisfaction.

CTI conceptualizes layers of identity as both changing and stable, and both subjective and ascribed. 4 layers are interdependent:

  • Personal: individual, sense of self-being
  • relational: identity defined in relationship, and ascribed
  • Enacted: performance of identity, through verbal and nonverbal messages
  • Communal: how society defines identity and identities (i.e., group membership)

The gap between personal and enacted identities is called identity gaps (Jung and Hecht 2004), leads to negative psychological outcomes (e.g., depression). But it could also help individual try to close the gap (cognitive dissonant).

We want others to value the same attributes that we ourselves value (L. Baxter and Braithwaite 2008, 261)


4.2.2.1 Application

(WILLER and SOLIZ 2010)

  • Socially aggressive face threats (SAFTs) are “messages that threaten one’s identity or positive face”

  • social aggression can damage self-esteem, social standing.

  • Face is the self or image that people present and expect others to main or support during interaction (Cupach and Metts 1994), which includes two desires:

    • positive face needs: desire for approval, appreciation, and liking

    • negative face needs: desires for freedom from action ad imposition

  • and two threats

    • positive face threats: similar to socially aggressive messages. Hence, the authors use the terms SAFTs.
  • Negative affect negatively associated feelings of forgiveness (measured by feelings of revenge and avoidance, avoidance)


(Nuru 2014)

  • transgender is when “self-identify with a gender that ‘’contradicts’’ socially acceptable gender roles and expectations as dictated by external genitalia and assigned birth sex.”

    • “any divergence from conventional social norms that tie gender identity to role expectancy and biological sex” (Bornstein 2013)
  • Gender identity may overlap sexuality, they are two distinct processes of negotiation.

  • Genital sex can differ from social and psychological gender.

  • Gaps between personal, enacted, and relational layers are prevalent.

  • Strategies to mitigate tension:

    • Closeted enactment

    • disengagement

    • passing: intentional disguise to preserve relationship

    • label changing


(Harris and Janovec 2018)

  • In the context of bullying, studies have traditionally been White-oriented. Hence, there is a need for diverse sampling.

  • Due to political climate in 2016, students are reported to be more anxious and new wave of political bullying was on the rise.

  • race is a social construct that relates to power, privilege, and systemic oppression. racist draw societal power from being members of the majority group. Racism is different from racial prejudice and racial discrimination (i.e., everybody can be racially prejudice, but only macro culture members can be racists).

  • Bullying can happen between group (macro vs. micro cultures), and within group (in-group bullying, i.e., Mexican American and Mexican immigrants).

  • Marginalized status triggers victim status

    • family socioeconomic status (SES) and test scores are correlated
  • Intersectioanality and Race in Bullying


References

Aune, R. Kelly, and Toshiyuki Kikuchi. 1993. “Effects of Language Intensity Similarity on Perceptions of Credibility Relational Attributions, and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12 (3): 224–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x93123004.
Baxter, Leslie, and Dawn Braithwaite. 2008. Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.
Bornstein, Kate. 2013. Gender Outlaw. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203365991.
Chen, Chien-Yu, Nick Joyce, Jake Harwood, and Jun Xiang. 2016. “Stereotype Reduction Through Humor and Accommodation During Imagined Communication with Older Adults.” Communication Monographs 84 (1): 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1149737.
Cupach, William, and Sandra Metts. 1994. Facework. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326986.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 2007. “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.
Harris, Tina M., and Anastacia Janovec. 2018. “Bullying and the Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture on Personal Violations.” In The Routledge Handbook of Communication and Bullying, 37–45. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315148113-5.
Honeycutt, James M. 2014. “11. Imagined Interactions.” In Interpersonal Communication. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276794.249.
Jung, Eura, and Michael L. Hecht. 2004. “Elaborating the Communication Theory of Identity: Identity Gaps and Communication Outcomes.” Communication Quarterly 52 (3): 265–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370197.
Li, Han Z. 2001. “Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter- and Intracultural Dyadic Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20 (3): 259–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x01020003001.
Nuru, Audra K. 2014. “Between Layers: Understanding the Communicative Negotiation of Conflicting Identities by Transgender Individuals.” Communication Studies 65 (3): 281–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.833527.
Stryker, Sheldon, George J. McCall, and J. L. Simmons. 1979. “Identities and Interactions: An Examination of Human Associations in Everyday Life.” Contemporary Sociology 8 (3): 469. https://doi.org/10.2307/2064633.
WILLER, ERIN K., and JORDAN SOLIZ. 2010. “Face Needs, Intragroup Status, and Womens Reactions to Socially Aggressive Face Threats.” Personal Relationships 17 (4): 557–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01297.x.