First Impressions
There is wisdom in the saying “you do not get a second chance to make a first impression,” (Dickson 2005, p. 87). The first perceptions that people get of others in social situations unquestionably influence their expectations of them. Within the initial few minutes of interpersonal communication people make conclusions which can later affect how they think of others and how they construe each other’s conduct. These initial judgments have a significant impact on successive judgments, because people have a tendency of adapting any contradictory information to make it more suitable to their present cognitive frame. This could take the form of the halo effect, in which if our first impressions are positive we have a tendency of seeing the person’s future conduct in a good light. On the other hand, it can take the form of the horn effect, whereby people form a first negative judgment and then construe the individual’s future conduct within this negative framework (McKay, Davis & Fanning 2009). Even though first impressions are powerful, they can be deceptive. For instance, during my first year of study at the university, I always heard students complaining of a very harsh lecturer. This is because of the first impression the lecturer portrayed to the students at their first lecture. Only later did I come to realize that the lecturer in question is indeed a soft-spoken and kind person.
Gender-Based Communication
Gender is one factor that has a significant effect on communication. This is because men and women use different styles of communication. On the one hand, men use language to communicate facts, to attain certain status in a group, to defy others, and to avoid being pushed around. Men usually engage in conversations with the concern of who is up and who is down. From this viewpoint, communication is used as a contest to avoid being the one in the lower position. As a result, men are often excessively sensitive about requesting for advice or for ideas about how to react to a specific situation, and about being told what to do. In short, they do not want to appear as inferior or weak (Crooks & Baur 2008). On the other hand, women communicate to attain and share intimacy, to encourage closeness, and to avoid being pushed away by others.
Women are not naturally socialized to use communication as a protective weapon to avoid being ruled or controlled by others. Instead, their concern is to utilize dialogue as a means of getting close to those around them. The goal of a woman in communicating her concerns is usually to nurture a feeling of sharing, relationship, and support. Women often look for a response such as “I have been there too” (Dindia & Canary 2006, p. 202) which shows that the person understands what the woman is going through. Gender-based differences in communication often lead to the distancing effect of communication (Crooks & Baur 2008). At the university, gender-based communication differences are evident during group discussions. Whereas male students are keen in providing suggestions, ideas and being bossy, female students on the other hand are keener in settling disputes that inevitably arise in such group discussions.
Culture-Based communication
At the university, there are many students from different cultural backgrounds. Intercultural communication has enabled me to note a number of differences in communication between students from different cultures. A good illustration is the difference in communication between Caucasians and Hispanics. Communication between Hispanics is often animated with interruptions made frequently. This shows that the people engaged in the conversation are enthusiastic about the topic of discussion. During conversations, a steady eye contact is always maintained between the speaker and the listener as a sign of genuine interest, concentration and honesty. Hispanics maintain a very short physical distance when talking to each other. Touching each other is very common while engaging in conversations. Hispanics also make judgments of other people based on their personal principles rather than on abstract things. Being a collectivist community, Hispanics place a high value on the family and give the family more attention than even the bottom line.
Caucasians on the other hand are very task-oriented. They sacrifice their social relations for the sake of achieving a professional goal. They avoid making idle conversations in meetings and instead focus the entire time talking about business matter and nothing else. Americans also value preciseness and they hate it when someone beats around the bush for politeness’ sake. They value a person who is straight to the point than one who wastes time on many words. They value clarity and do not care whether it comes out rudely or not. Failure to be clear and precise could be perceived as impoliteness and dishonesty. Unlike their Hispanic counterparts, Caucasians maintain a longer physical distance when communicating. Failure to do so is perceived as rudeness and as an invasion of their personal space and privacy (Gudykunst 2005).
Non-Verbal Communication
Non-verbal communication is the use of gestures and facial expressions to communicate a message. Nonverbal messages can either be intentional or pre-meditated. However, they unmistakably convey to individuals and affect their interpretation. Nonverbal messages may hamper or facilitate communication. Features of nonverbal communication include:
Unintentional: Nonverbal messages can be conveyed unconsciously and without prior planning. In cases where the verbal message contradicts the nonverbal message, the receiver of the message is more likely to base the understanding and the intention of the message on the nonverbal message (Krizan, Merrier, Logan & Williams 2004).
It makes and facilitates first impressions: First impressions are very influential. They usually result in frozen assessments, that is, images that can be very difficult to change (Knapp & Augustine 2002). A good illustration of how nonverbal communication affects first impressions is the communication between students from different cultures. Using the example of Hispanic and Caucasian students, a Caucasian student interacting with a Hispanic student for the first time can judge the Hispanic student as being rude and dishonest because Hispanics maintain close personal distance and use too many words when communicating. On the other hand, a Hispanic student may perceive the Caucasian student as unfriendly because Caucasians tend to be precise and brief and maintain a distant physical space when communicating.
Reference
Crooks, R & Baur, K 2008, Our sexuality, Thomson Higher Education, Belmont, CA.
Dickson, H 2005, Skilled interpersonal communication: Research theory and practice, Routledge, New York.
Dindia, K & Canary, D 2006, Sex differences and similarities in communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Gudykunst, W 2005, Theorizing about intercultural communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Knapp, M & Augustine, J 2002, Handbook of interpersonal communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Krizan, A, Merrier, P, Logan, J & Williams, K 2004, Business communication, Thomson Higher Education, Mason, OH.
McKay, M, Davis, M & Fanning, P 2009, Messages: The communication skills book, New Harbinger Publications, Oakland, CA.