Change and Communication

One of the interesting things about The Change Report is the importance of change in everyone’s life; it’s universal, it’s inevitable. Further, the two most frequent initial responses to change were: discussion with family and discussion with friends. Clearly, change and communication are closely related.
And yet we do very little with change in our teaching of communication. Although we talk about the stages of a relationship, for example, we don’t provide very much guidance for dealing with the inevitable changes that take place as you move toward or away from intimacy, say. It seems only in General Semantics is the nature of change and its implications for thought and behavior a major part of study. Static evaluation, dating statements, and the process nature of reality, for example, offer excellent guides for dealing with change.
We need to do more with teaching students how to adjust to change. Just brainstorming a bit, such topics might include: How do messages change with one’s position in the organizational hierarchy? How do you talk about your changing feelings in a romantic or friendship or family relationship? How do you move from friendship to romance? How do you come out and tell your parents you’re gay? How can you adapt to the change after your son or daughter comes out? How do you tell a loved one you’ve just been given bad news about your health? How do you tell your parents that you’re ready to move on and leave the nest? How do you explain the changes you’ve gone through when you ask for a divorce or separation? How do you adapt to again being single (after a divorce or separation, say)? How do you adapt to changes after being fired? Most of these questions actually are related to the findings in The Change Report.
One additional note may be added here: About 37% of the respondents claimed that they did not respond successfully to change. Among the regrets that people have about their unsuccessful dealing with change are: less stress; being more assertive; doing greater planning; doing things sooner, for example, looking for a job; worry less; and communicating more effectively.

Gender Differences

Here's a brief review of Michael Motley's study on why men and women miscommunicate. It's an interesting take on a much discussed issue.

Change and Gender

According to The Change Report (the website I noted in a previous post seems to have disappeared) both men and women say they respond to change successfully. The fears that men and women perceive as most stressful seem very similar, with a few differences. For example, the top 5 fears of men are (in order, beginning with the most stressful): death of a spouse, death of a family member, diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, a downward turn in personal finances, and disability. The top 5 fears reported by women are: death of a family member, death of a spouse, diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, a downward turn in personal finances, and the disability or illness of one’s partner. In their summary of gender differences, Change Report notes that men are more likely to fear disability and the death of a friend than are women. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to fear the death of a family member and the illness of a child than are men.

Gay Marriage and Communication

Since the issue of gay marriage is so central to all aspects of communication and relationships, a few words about the issue and particularly about the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory seem appropriate.
In fact, I would think this topic would make for some spirited classroom discussion. The issue is perhaps most relevant to the study of interpersonal communication and relationships (after all, the way in which a relationship is defined—semantically and politically—will influence the relationship and the way in which others respond to that relationship which in turn will influence the relationship further, and on and on). But, I think the topic will prove relevant in a variety of classes. For example, in interpersonal communication (if you’re using a stage model of relationships such as the one I present in my books or the models of Mark Knapp or Julia Wood, say), some interesting discussion might center on how the stages might differ among persons who can be married and persons who cannot be married? How does that one difference influence the possible progression up and down the relationship track? In a persuasion class, the arguments for and against gay marriage would make for an interesting exercise in logic and reasoning. In small group classes this topic would be a natural for an information-sharing discussion. And in mass media, the topic would make for some interesting comparisons among media outlets in the United States and throughout the world. And in all these courses, the relevance of this topic to the issue to ethics is obvious.
California is only the 2nd state (Massachusetts is the other) to recognize something so obvious as the fact that preventing one group of people from enjoying the benefits that are readily available to another group of people is discriminatory and unconstitutional. It’s helpful, I think, to remember that it was as recently as 1967 (June 12)—just 40 years ago—that the US Supreme Court ruled (in Loving v. Virginia) that bans against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. And it’s also relevant to recall that the prohibitions against interracial marriage were supported by some of the very same organizations (some religious, some political) that are now asking that GLBT people continue to be discriminated against. Wouldn’t it be nice if “marriage” was defined in terms of the love between two people and not by gender?
I wonder (and worry) about why discrimination against a group of people occupies so much of the time and energy of the very people and organizations who are supposed to be concerned with issues that can improve the quality of life for all people. Why would they not be more concerned with such issues as the war, the economy, an educational system in need of major renovation, an infrastructure desperately in need of repair, global warming, and pollution—to take just a few examples? I just don’t get it.

Change

The Change Report, based on 1306 online interviews conducted by Southeastern Institute of Research has a lot to say about interpersonal communication and relationships so I thought I'd post a few items based on this report. The part of this research that has been highlighted by the press is its survey of the top fears that people have now and had in 1967 (when the Social Readjustment Rating Scale was published). There are some interesting differences and although the researchers caution that statistical comparisons should not be made, they do note that the findings can be interpreted as relative and directional. [Respondents were asked to give a numerical value (from 1 to 100) to a variety of stressful events.] In 1967 the death of a spouse was rated 100 but in 2007 it was rated 80. The death of a friend, on the other hand, showed a different direction. In 1967 it was 37 but in 2007 it was 58.
Also interesting was the rating given to divorce--in 1967 it received a rating of 73 but in 2007 it had dropped to 66. It seems relationship stressors are easier to navigate today than they were in 1967.
On the other hand, stress from being laid off from a job went from 47 in 1967 to 62 in 2007 and changing job field went from 36 in 1967 to 47 in 2007. It seems that job stressors are getting worse.

Rockefeller, Harvard, and Elitism

The comment on my post about Rockefeller and Harvard deserves a response. Basically, 3 items: First, Rockefeller did not profit from Harvard in any meaningful way; Harvard, on the other hand, profited from Rockefeller. Rockefeller profited from a family fortune--Harvard probably had little to do with it. Rockefeller was probably well educated before he went to Harvard and would have been as successful as he was had he gone to any city or state college. Second, I don't think the motivation for giving should be based on where you went to school or what organization you're a member of, but rather on where your money can do the most good. And, Harvard, isn't the spot, IMHO. Third, this type of giving is just an example of the elite giving to the elite to perpetuate their own elitism. Having said this, I believe that Rockefeller has the right to give his money where he wants, but I don't have to believe there was such noble purpose to this gesture or that the money could not have been spent more wisely or more honorably. Success--whether financial or academic--entails responsibilities and I don't see this $100,000,000 gift to Harvard as meeting the responsibilities of someone so enormously wealthy.

Blog Links

Take a look at the blogs (Communication Overload and Communicate Better) under links. I think you'll find them both interesting and useful.