The following is
Standalone material, and is based off of the subjects
discussed in the
Subject Analysis Audio Files. Each audio file has a corresponding
overview
and integrative
analysis that combines the findings of the respective material.
Subject Analysis 1:
CSC
--27--
Sex --M--
Audio
Overview:
“Observer”
- Me
“Subject”
- Subject 1
“CSC”
- Collective Subject Conversation Score
- Subject 1
- Highest CSC score - 27%
- Previous relationship with subject prior to experiment implies that this change in social activity between subject and observer is significant. Free will was involved – the subject was not coerced in any way to converse with observer..
- Presuming that all aforementioned factors are correct: Writing is of probable fault
- Since the observer had only one method of communication at this time, which was included into the week of the study where the significant change of behavior was noted, it is likely that the singular method of communication itself that proved itself so popular to the subject was indeed the factor that influenced the change in behavior.
- Writing
- To speak verbally is to speak with the advantages of both versatility and convenience. However, what one speaks is available to all who are around to hear. Such 'exposure' requires the individual to apply a constant censorship of sorts to conversation. Alternately, public disclosure of private information is looked down upon – you could say that it is a “
“norm” of society that everyone is expected to adhere. In a public area, we are expected to assume the “role” of nondisclosure and save our personal information in more secluded locations. (Myers, 2011) - Writing, however, seems to create a 'private' environment for the recipient and communicator, which, as is the case with verbal conversation, relaxes the societal pressures that dictate our public behavior and allow us more freedom to self disclose.
- Self disclosure, on an important note, is, according to a independently verifiable study by Collins and Miller, the method by which we most typically form close relationships. (1994) By revealing our own personal information, we expose ourselves to the individual and ask the same of another, just as any other relationship strengthening exercise.
- One potential flaw of written conversation is the lack of physical engagement. Though the exact impact of emotion on communication has not yet been quantified, multiple observations suggest that its absence was indeed noted by the subjects. Subject 1, most notably, always looked toward my face for emotional cues (perhaps to discern the nature of a sarcastic remark), and finding none would ask me to elucidate my true intentions. This was observed repeatedly amongst several subjects, especially with regards to ambiguous communications. This suggests that emotion, as an accentuation device for communication, lies somewhere in the realm of influence far beneath that of Mehrabian's 55, 38, 7% Rule (1981), but nonetheless an influential factor in communication.
- The most startling observation of all, of course, is the subject's dogged perseverance in non-verbal communication with the observer – even though verbal communication is far easier. This type of behavior is suggestive that writing offers some benefit over verbal communication. Perhaps a desire for self-disclose, the expected gesture of reciprocation, or the mere novelty of a private zone of communication in a public area were the domineering factors – such things cannot be concluded by observation alone.
Integration:
Emotion is a universal facet of human communication – in presence
as in execution. Though its nuances can vary from culture to culture,
our basic expression, such as anger or happiness, are perceived
similarly (Elfenbein & Ambady, 1999). Verbal language shares this
peculiar uniformity – the languages of the world all share a
'universal grammar' that utilizes the same basic grammatical
structures such as nouns and verbs (Hausen, 2006; Mikhail, 2007). The
similarities and universality of both of these communicative methods
suggest that an innate biological predisposition exists that causes
us to strive to acquire them.
Biology is definitive in its tendency for organizing faculties in
complimentary and cohesive ways. Language and emotion are similar –
to that there is no doubt. The divination of their exact
relationship, however, has proven to be a daunting task. Given the
observational data provided by subject 1, such enigma begin to
dissipate in the face of promising suggestion. As suggested in the
analysis of subject 1, the situation in which a conversation
transpires can change a publicly-censored discourse into a more
intimate exchange of self disclosure. In such intimate exchanges,
emotion seems to come into greater preponderance. Emotion, as such
seems to serve as a manifest for this evolved relationship as the
exchange of self disclosure creates less explicable bonds of
affectation.
This assertion, if correction, would establish emotion as a
compliment to language, morphing and changing in relative
significance to the strength and situation of a given relationship.
Subject Analysis 2
CSC --18--
Sex --F--
Audio Overview:
“Observer”
- Me
“Subject”
- Subject 2
“CSC”
- Collective Subject Conversation Score
- Subject 2
- Next-highest CSC score – 18%
- Emphasis should be placed on the fact that the subject of mention is female, which, as both experimental study and cultural role has established, seems to be the superior race for empathy. (Hall, 1984-7)
- As noted with subject 1, subject 2's reactions to the abrupt change in communicative faculty of the observer was to reciprocate in a manner suggestive of a much more friendly relationship. It is notable to state that many of the subjects with the highest CSC's (subjects 1-4) sat close to or was otherwise in constant physical contact with me. This trend of beings in close proximity forming relationships is constant with the similar trend found in conventional communicative methods (Myers, 2011), though no doubt amplified by the intrinsic limitations presented by non-verbal linguistics.
- Also as noted with subject 1, subject 2 was in no way, shape, or form coerced to converse with the observer. All social interactions were of the subject's own free will.
- The subject displayed behavior consistent with the findings of subject 1, reinforcing its validity.
- A few additional behaviors reinforcing previous observations were observed.
- The subject was unwilling to disclose material discussed in our observation log
- As the data for study termination grew near, the subject grew increasingly anxious in our discourses, asking if the observer could still converse with them with this method after termination. When asked for an explanation for such an odd request, no consistent answer was given. When the observer was unwilling to comply to this request, the subject became aloof and refused to converse with the observer for a period of time.
- Of particular interest, however, was the subject's amplified reactions to emotion in our non-verbal discourse, often becoming irritated when the observer provided an entry without reflecting an appropriate emotional form. Though the subject was not a novel executor of these reactions, she was the most perceptive of their absence, and frequently saw to it that emotion was inserted as regularly as possible.
- Common methods employed to promote emotion were:
- Inclusion of emoticons in sentences
- Refusal to read sentences that lacked an emoticon
- Withholding a response until a facial motion was displayed
- Though personal and gender factors likely played a role in the subject's curious attention to emotion, this inferred ' fixation' with emotion is not exclusive to the subject. Many individuals expressed concerns of emotion in varying magnitudes during our discourse, especially when conversing in ambiguous situations.
Integration:
Emotion
is a powerful faculty in the human mind. As concluded in the Gelman
study, the lack of accurate emotive perception carries the danger of
potential misunderstandings in ambiguous situations (1989). A person
who matches the emotions of someone with whom they are conversing
(demonstrating more empathy) often show greater success in their
ability to “listen more accurately to the flow of inner
experiences.” (Rogers, 1980, p. 116) Even the simple act of forming
an expression can modify one's feelings. (Strack et al., 1988) The
observational data given from subject 2 shows a more intense but
nonetheless commonly prevalent trait in human nature - a tendency to
look for emotion to help define and elucidate conversational
information, and a tendency to be confused when they are lacking.
Situation, again, stands out as a predominant factor in determining
the applicability of emotion and language as influential factors in
interpersonal communication. Though it is difficult to analyze the specific influential factors of language and emotion due to their fluctuating preponderances, the situations that modify one's communicative abilities prove the most definitive in their ability to infer communicative relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment