1. Home
  2. Students
  3. Chapter 4: Perception and Interpersonal Communication

Chapter 4 Perception and Interpersonal Communication

Perception is the process by which people select, organize, and interpret information available to their senses; therefore, it fundamentally affects communication with other people. This chapter describes the stages of perception and factors that affect how people perceive and make sense of other people. In addition, the chapter examines attributions, or how people explain the causes of behavior, with an emphasis on attribution biases in close relationships. The influence of individual differences, such as gender, age, and cognitive complexity, alcohol intoxication, and stereotyping on perception are also discussed. Among other suggestions, this chapter offer recommendations for overcoming subjective biases in perception, protecting valued relationships through adaptive attributions, and combating the influence of stereotypes.

How Do You Rate? Assessments

Communication in Action Forms

Connect with Theory

Expectancy violation theory explains how people react when they encounter unexpected behavior. Much of its early research has focused on nonverbal violations of behavior, such as what happens when someone stands too close or too far. Beyond explaining nonverbal aspects of interaction, the theory has been used to analyze a wide range of behavioral violations. The theory argues that we all have expectations about what interaction should be like based on the norms, rules, or routines. There are three factors that can affect our expectations about how interaction should go: communicator characteristics (e.g., age, sex, ethnic background, and personality), relationship characteristics (e.g., relational closeness, the type of relationship), and the context (e.g., social situation and cultural influences). For example, when a platonic friend touches you in an overly intimate manner, you may become aware of how your expectations about the interaction have been violated. According to the theory, when expectations are violated, people’s response will be contingent on two factors. First, people make judgments about whether the unexpected behavior is more or less satisfying than the expected behavior. If the unexpected behavior is more satisfying than the expected behavior, it is a positive violation. In contrast, if the unexpected behavior is less satisfying than the expected behavior, it is a negative violation. Second, how rewarding the partner is can also shape people’s response to violations. If the person is rewarding, we interpret their violations more positively. If the person is not rewarding, we interpret their violations more negatively. For example, when someone you like hugs you, you would be excited to hug him/her back. But, if someone you dislike gives you a hug, you may want to back away from him/her. Using the framework of expectancy violation theory, Bevan (2003) found that people in romantic relationships perceived sexual resistance by a partner as a more negative expectancy violation than those in cross-sex friendships. In another study, Miller-Ott and Kelly (2015) examined the expectations that romantic partners have of cell phone use when spending time with each other, and they found that people expected the partner to refrain from using a cell phone while going on dates and having intimate moments in private. The theory provides insight into how people make sense of unexpected behaviors and situations. 

References and other suggested readings:

Bevan, J. L. (2003). Expectancy violation theory and sexual resistance in close, cross-sex relationships. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/715114662
Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Applying a comparative approach to nonverbal expectancy violations theory. In J. Blumler, K. E. Rosengren, & J. M. McLeod (Eds.), Comparatively speaking: Communication and culture across space and time (pp. 53-69). Sage.
Burgoon, J. K. (1995). Cross‐cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: International and inter- cultural communication annual (Vol. 19, pp. 194-214). Sage.
Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x
Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80(4), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371
White, C. H. (2015). Expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory: From expectations to adaptation. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 217-228). Sage.

Alcohol myopia theory explains the effects of alcohol consumption on social perception and behavior. The theory argues that alcohol causes people to limit their attention to salient and immediate cues in the environment, to take longer to process information, and to have trouble connecting immediate experience with past events. The theory claims that alcohol affects social behavior because it reduces people’s cognitive capacity to balance competing interests. According to the theory, social behaviors are guided by two cues: those that promote a response (provoking cues) and those that constrain a response (inhibiting cues). When those two cues are in opposition to each other, inhibition conflict occurs. For example, developing romantic feelings for a friend may motivate someone to disclose that information (provoking cues), but he/she may also recognize that doing so can make things awkward or even jeopardize the relationship (inhibiting cues). When sober, he/she is skilled at balancing those two competing interests and is able to act appropriately. When being alcohol intoxicated, however, the theory argues that he/she is more likely to act upon provoking cues rather than inhibiting cues, leading to behaviors that are often inappropriate and extreme. The theory has been used to understand the effects of alcohol consumption on risky sexual behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex; MacDonald et al., 2000), memory (Compo et al., 2011), and perceptions of social self-esteem (Monahan & Lannutti, 200), to name a few. The theory provides a framework for understanding how and why drinking alcohol leads to risky and excessive behaviors.

References and other suggested readings:

Compo, N. S., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Kemp, D., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., & Rose, S. (2011). Alcohol intoxication and memory for events: A snapshot of alcohol myopia in a real-world drinking scenario. Memory, 19(2), 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.546802
MacDonald, T. K., Fong, G. T., Zanna, M. P., & Martineau, A. M. (2000). Alcohol myopia and condom use: Can alcohol intoxication be associated with more prudent behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 605-619.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.605
Monahan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. L. (2000). Alcohol as social lubricant: Alcohol myopia theory, social self-esteem, and social interaction. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 175-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00755.x
Steele, C. M., Crichlow, B., & Liu, T. J. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior II: The helpful drunkard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.35
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921-933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921
Steele, C. M., & Southwick, L. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior I: The psychology of drunken excess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.18

Flashcards

Download Flashcard Spreadsheet

Selected Writings by Communication Studies majors at California State Prison

Los Angeles County, City of Lancaster

In the fall of 2016, the Department of Communication Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, began offering classes inside a maximum security prison facility to offer incarcerated persons the opportunity to achieve a bachelor’s degree in Communication. In spring of 2017, selected assignments and essays produced by those students in response to prompts from this textbook were published in Colloquy: A Journal of the Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Los Angeles. In the time since, the program created The Prison BA Journal to share the students’ work with others. In addition, collaboration between the Lancaster State Prison’s Communication Studies students and students in Cal State LA’s Animation Option brought to life student essays through animation and narration.

Dr. Kamran Afary, faculty advisor to the program and Assistant Professor of Social Justice Communication, describes the impact of learning about interpersonal communication on his students: “I have seen its life transforming effect on my students in their interpersonal relationships with each other and in repairing relationships with their families.” Through the generosity of the program, we can share their work with all students learning from this textbook.

This website shares reflections and animations created in response to Pause and Reflect prompts, organized by chapter, as well as selected essays, poems, and presentations that address other topics or course assignments. Here is just a sample of what you will find: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7155653

We hope you will take the time to learn about interpersonal communication through the words of these students: https://www.prisonbajournal.org/ipccompanion