research about interpersonal communication

Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships

(12 reviews)

Jason S. Wrench, State University of New York

Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, Texas Tech University

Katherine S. Thweatt, State University of New York

Last Update: 2023

ISBN 13: 9781942341772

Publisher: Milne Open Textbooks

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Jinnie Jeon, Assistant Professor, Adler University on 5/30/23

N/A read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Clarity rating: 5

Consistency rating: 5

Modularity rating: 5

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Interface rating: 5

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

“Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships” by Jason S. Wrench, Narissa M. Punyanunt-Carter, and Katherine S. Thweatt is a truly illuminating journey into the depths of human interaction. A cutting-edge book written in an engraining and accessible style, it expertly blends theoretical foundations with practical applications, encouraging readers not just to understand but also to implement the principles of effective communication. The author’s unique focus on mindfulness, a concept rarely emphasized in similar literature, provides a fresh perspective and an essential tool for nurturing and enhancing relationships in today’s fast-paced, technology-driven world. This approach enables readers to become more present and thoughtful communicators. Despite the intricacies of the subject matter, the text remains approachable and practical, enriched by real-life examples and exercises that promote self-reflection. The original cover art by Melinda Ahan adds a touch of beauty and uniqueness to this enlightening piece of work. Overall, the book stands as a seminal text for anyone seeking to improve their interpersonal communication skills, from students to professionals and beyond.

Reviewed by Dana Trunnell, Associate Professor of Communication, Prairie State College on 3/15/23

This text covers interpersonal communication concepts and theory in extraordinary detail with the added bonus of weaving mindfulness into each topic. If anything, I find the chapters to be almost too long for undergraduate reading expectations. That said, the mindfulness approach, along with the care taken to cover topics from multiple perspectives is appreciated. One especially great resource is the accompanying instructor resource manual, which is very detailed, updated, and helpful. It is not the afterthought that some OER textbooks provide. I would like to see more coverage of LGBTQIA+ issues.

The text is accurate, without grammatical and proofreading errors. I do think the text can be rather repetitive in spots, so word economy might be something to think about for future revisions and editions.

Interpersonal Communication is a timeless discipline and the text reflects this disciplinary longevity. I find the mindfulness approach to be an important update as the mindfulness trend establishes itself into a more long-term approach to thinking about relationships, communication, and life, in general. But, the text should be updated to be more aware and inclusive of emerging norms in race, LGBTQIA+, and sociopolitical issues.

Clarity rating: 4

Information is presented in an easy-to-read format and concepts are explained clearly. As I mentioned above, at times, the text can be pretty repetitive, which affects readability.

The content in this text is consistent with the approaches of for-profit volumes on Interpersonal Communication.

I like that this text displays the full chapter when one clicks on the link instead of only one subsection of that chapter. So, students can read the entire chapter from one link without having to scroll through other pages using navigational tools. I have found that the latter is very confusing to students, who might read only the first subsection and not the entire chapter. These links can easily be incorporated into an LMS module for easy access. In addition, each chapter is organized consistently, beginning with introductory information about each unit. The chapters are divided by major topics/concepts and each division includes Learning Objectives, Key Takeaways, and application Exercises. Time is devoted in each chapter to the application of the mindfulness approach as it relates to the topic of study. Chapters end with a list of important terms, a case study, and end-of-chapter assessments.

The content flowed well with transitions linking the chapters. I think the ordering of the chapters made sense. I also think it makes sense to organize them completely differently. The beauty of interpersonal communication is that it is so important and pervasive in our lives that we can jump in anywhere and get the discussion started. I do think, however, it is easy to adapt the flow of the text to any class – titular notions of “Chapter 1,” “Chapter 2,” etc. mean less with an electronic resource that is linked to LMS modules than a physical book.

Interface rating: 4

The textbook is easy to use and easy to navigate as it uses the consistent approach of other texts housed in the Open Textbook Library. Chapters are consistently organized and it is easy to move throughout the text. I love that hyperlinks are provided so students can access referenced surveys, measures, and other supplementary material. Unfortunately, some of these are dead links.

I did not encounter grammatical errors as I read.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The book acknowledges the importance of cultural factors as they influence various parts of the interpersonal communication process. However, the text would benefit from an update that helps students navigate the current communication climate, especially as they relate to current issues associated with race, sociopolitical events, and LGBTQIA+ people.

This text is particularly good for introductory-level interpersonal communication students. Instructors who value mindfulness as a daily practice will find this text especially suitable for their teaching style. New instructors will be impressed and feel supported by the extensive ancillary material.

Reviewed by Beth Austin, Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Wisconsin - Superior on 9/23/22

This book covers all the relevant material covered in a typical textbook on interpersonal communication. read more

This book covers all the relevant material covered in a typical textbook on interpersonal communication.

After briefly looking through the book and with publisher and the authors' credentials, I am confident in the accuracy of the content.

This text was published in 2020 and the images, research, and mindfulness angle are still relevant. Only time will tell the reception that mindfulness receives over the years.

This book is easy to read and contains foundational jargon for the discipline.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The page layout of this book provides the reader with captivating images which provide reading breaks. The infographics are colorful and visually dynamic.

The flow and structure of this book follow the table of contents for many other interpersonal communication texts.

This book is user-friendly and easy on the eyes.

I did not find any grammatical errors in this book.

I did not see any evidence of insensitive or offensive material in the book.

Chapter 14: The Darkside of Interpersonal Communication provides information about which many undergraduate students may relate.

Reviewed by Riley Richards, Assistant Professor, Oregon Institute of Technology on 8/22/22

This book offers a unique perspective on IPC, particularly through its mindfulness lens. Through this lens, it covers the standard and expected major ideas needed to cover in an IPC class and is covered in other IPC textbooks. The information covered and how it is presented (i.e., readability) are fit for undergraduate students in an introductory or standalone IPC course. Areas of content that stand out in this text, compared to other IPC texts, are the chapters on mediated communication and especially the dark side of IPC. Additionally, emotions through the lens of mindfulness are discussed throughout the text while other IPC texts lump the connection between emotion and communication into a section or chapter. From an instructor standpoint, I especially appreciated the authors explaining how research findings were found (i.e., methodology) instead of simply providing the student with the information and a citation through the research spotlight sections. My only minor critique is the family and marriage relationship chapter. The marriage portion albeit limited is related to family but also seemed out of place in the text. A standalone chapter on romantic/sexual relationships seems like a natural next step in the next edition. Also, instructors can easily substitute this section for other material. Finally, the additional materials (e.g., Ted Talk, YouTube videos) provide accessible material for a student who may wish to learn more in-depth information or prefer information through different mediums.

The authors did well in balancing the breadth and depth of the subject within each chapter and across the book. I did not find parts or the sum of the parts to be biased or inaccurate.

As of this review, the content is up to date across the board from current research findings to the inclusion of seminal research and examples of concepts (e.g., COVID-19) that students can relate to. Additionally, the text is written (also through its license) in such a way that other instructors can freely expand on the authors’ examples or go in and make their own. Finally, I believe the lens of mindfulness to be around and relatable for quite some time based on national data about Generation Z coming through university doors for at least the next few decades.

The text was clear. The authors do a good job clearly defining and calling the reader’s attention to major ideas before going in-depth into the concept. The real-world case study included at the end of every chapter and its prompted thinking questions (which could easily be in-class discussion questions) is helpful for readers to consider key ideas in contexts immediately after reading the chapter.

The text keeps consistent and uses terminology as it was originally defined/discussed and is consistent with the larger IPC literature.

The text is clearly divided into chapters and sections within chapters. Instructors can easily use standalone chapters and/or add/remove sections within chapters to meet their pedagogy needs. The text is not overly self-referential, and a new reader would not need to read chapters in order. However, the reader would be best to have some background to IPC (i.e., chapters 1-3) before reading how the material applies in specific contexts.

The chapters are logically ordered and run in order similar to most IPC texts (i.e., I did not have to change my course vary much when transitioning to a new text). Each chapter opens with clear learning outcomes and ends with a reminder of the key terms and supplies the reader with a means to immediately apply the content through case studies, quizzes, and personality tests.

Overall, there were no major issues. Few exceptions such as a table going over onto the next page, textbox, or section header breaking apart sentences in the same paragraph (e.g., “end of chapter” in chapter 12). These few exceptions do not take away from the content being covered.

In my read through I found no major issues. I also offered my students extra credit to find errors (aids their writing) and they did not find any issues either.

The text was neither culturally insensitive nor offensive. The examples provided vary across genders, sexes, sexualities, races, and ethnicities. This is especially true in the culture chapter.

Overall, I strongly recommend this text to others. This is my first time using and reviewing an OER. I have used it for one summer term so far but plan to continue to use it in the future. No textbook is perfect for our individual needs, we all teach differently. However, the beauty of the author’s choice of license allows each of us to use the text differently. Thus, as the years go on, I will continue to pick and choose and supplement where I need to based on my curriculum and learning outcomes.

Reviewed by Abby Zegers, Correctional Education Coordinator, Des Moines Area Community College on 11/17/21

This text is incredibly comprehensive to the point that I feel that it could possibly be two texts or classes, depending on how much time you had. Each chapter dives relatively deep into its topic and not only is it visually appealing with up to date charts, graphs and pictures, the downloadable version has hyperlinks to directly take the student to a certain inventory that the chapter is utilizing as a supplement. I found this to be really engaging. The text has a separate instructor manual which is incredibly useful with all of the materials, power points, quizzes and other necessary information needed to instruct this class. There is a glossary at the end of the text. No index was available which in my opinion would be helpful simply due to the fact that many topics/subjects or inferences are utilized throughout the chapters and not necessarily in the one devoted to that topic.

I found the content to be accurate and free from bias. I noticed only a few grammatical errors but content was incredibly accurate and up to date with references cited appropriately throughout.

Interpersonal communication is a topic that holds relevance and longevity as many things stay the same however the authors did an excellent job with current communication topics such as Chapter 12 devoted to Interpersonal Communication in Mediated Contexts. This is a topic I spend a great deal of time on with my classes as it is so current and relative to their lives right now. I think that this information will change in the future however the content available now on the topic will remain relevant as “history”. I found value in the links to different personality tests or activities that were relevant to the topic at hand and appreciated that they were available so easily as students are more likely to click a link rather than jot down something they might look up later.

I found this text to be very elaborate into many topics relating to interpersonal communication and the extensive glossary was very helpful. The supplemental activities and videos presented are a wonderful way to apply what is approached in each lesson. The text uses a “mindfulness” approach which might be a new concept to some however I think it’s a great way to see the value and importance of the topic.

I found no issues with consistency. Each chapter is laid out the same with Learning Outcomes identified in each section, exercises that could be great journal activities or discussions, key takeaways, a chapter wrap up including key terms used, a real world case study and a quiz followed by references. It is consistent throughout the text and a great way to appeal to different types of learners.

The way this text is set up allows for one to jump around if need be however; the beginning focuses more on history and theory which in itself is important along with communication models. This in itself could almost be its own text with the depth the authors go to in the material along with the abundance of activities and self-assessments allowing the reading to analyze their own styles creates a nice foundation to continue into the material. For my own classes, I would never have enough time to get through this text and give it the attention that it deserves so the ability to pick and choose topics and chapters relative to today is really an attractive part of it for me.

I think this text flows very well and much of the material from the beginning builds upon itself. The chapters are in appropriate order with building content however; it is beneficial that an instructor could pick and choose different areas they wanted to focus on without losing too much. The text ends with Chapter 13 being Interpersonal Relationships at Work and Chapter 14 being The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication and I feel that these were appropriate choices to wrap up the text with.

I loved the ability to read through this text in electronic format and the hyperlinks were incredibly helpful and I had no issues with connectivity to sources. Images were clear and loaded as they should. I printed off a copy of the text and there were no formatting issues in doing so. I feel that utilizing the hard copy method or downloading the pdf version are both great options to have that appease different types of learners.

There were a few minor grammatical errors here and there but nothing that distracted me or was relative enough that I documented it. I felt like it was very well written and edited.

There is a specific chapter dedicated to Cultural and Environmental Factors in Interpersonal Communication however; references to cultural and gender issues are spread throughout and I feel like the information is inclusive.

Overall, I found this text to be a really great OER and am using pieces of it for my classes. I appreciate a text that appeals to many different styles of learners with text, videos, interactive quizzes and assessment and slides. So much material is available and covered and I find many sections of this to be useful in a few different classes that I teach. I am thankful to have found this text and look forward to continuing to use it.

Reviewed by Jennifer Adams, Professor, DePauw University on 11/13/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This book is lengthy, and each chapter contains more good content than I expected. There are chapters on each topic you would expect (although organized somewhat differently than most of the popular print textbooks in this discipline). For example, the information on perception is mostly in chapter 3, but some info about the topic was found across two other chapters (and attribution theory is not really included at all). There is no specific chapter on emotion, but there is content about it throughout. Furthermore, something that was somewhat new to me was incorporating the idea of "mindfulness" along with competence to understand communication processes. There is a chapter on technology that I think is growing in importance. This book doesn't really push the envelope on considering issues of identity like race or gender, but there is a good chapter on culture (and I would say that is also true of many for-profit books). The sections on relational communication are really thorough and give a good range or ideas and theories for each different relational experience. While the organization was slightly different than the book I was used to using (the Floyd text), I was able to find all of my content normally covered somewhere in this textbook.

I found no errors in this textbook that I have found aside from minor typos or a few strange sentences. The content is accurate and attributed to the correct sources. There is a lengthy and useful reference list.

This book includes all of the theories and concepts that I have been teaching for two decades. Their examples are really useful. One thing I did notice is that a lot of space is taken up by quizzes or activities - things like personality tests. I don't really use those in any way, but I do wonder if those types of things might be trendy - I don't know that or sure, but I didn't use them. I do think that the focus on "mindfulness" is something that is popular now that has not been in the past, but I certainly hope that the value in mindfulness doesn't trend away any time soon. I really thought that the book was up to date and see no reason it can't be updated relatively easily.

This book is comparable to the popular for-profit interpersonal communication textbooks that are available. It is addressed to the reader, and it is easy to read. It does introduce new terminology and concepts , but these are always defined clearly. At the end of every chapter, there is a 'take-away" section that includes key-terms, so there is the ability to look those up outside of the basic text as well. There are activities at the end of each chapter as well, to help develop.

Yes, the entire book is about interpersonal communication and it does not diverge from topics covered in the popular for-profit books. I didn't find any inconsistencies in the way that the material is presented. In fact, the opposite is true: their focus on "mindfulness" as a skill that can be developed holds each chapter together, so that there is not just information about the important ideas and theories, there is also a constant reflection on the values of mindfulness as it relates to all of the topics (and relationship types) that are covered.

This is really well organized. The book is divided into chapters, and each chapter is divided into subsections that have numbered placement within the chapter and headings throughout. (For example, chapter seven materials are divided into 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, etc). If you didn't want to assign the entire book, you could easily pick sections here and there to use (and you can save only those sections as PDFs to insert on your syllabus or organizing platforms).

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The book is not organized like my class was, but it wasn't a major deal and I simply hoped around a bit. So, for example, I thought that the chapter on culture should come sooner than chapter 6, perhaps before verbal and nonverbal communication. I also wasn't sure that some of the content in chapter 7 called "Talking and Listening" was placed well there - it seemed redundant in some ways, but some info (like social penetration theory or the johari window) seem like they should be in an earlier chapter about perception. That being said, these concerns are ultimately very minor - the content I expected was there, and I could assign page #s for specific sections that I needed to address at different times in the semester. I did not use this book chronologically from chapter 1 to the end, but that has been true for for-profit books I have used in the past, too. I found the chronology to be good.

I used this book in the fall of 2021, and recommended that all students download the PDF version, which is what I primarily use. The book's TOC is hyperlinked, and so you can easily find the content you are looking for and click to go to the relevant sections. When I do keyword searches for specific theories or concepts, they come up easily without error. It's easy to use and the layout is professional and attractive (pictures and images come through formatted correctly, charts and graphs look clear).

This book is well written. Aside from a few typos here and there, I didn't find lots of problems with readability. It's not perfect; for example, sometimes where there are bullet points, they are not written in a parallel style, or something like that which might be noticeable, but that was pretty infrequent. The writing is clear and correct.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

There is nothing offensive that I found in this book. The book includes examples and ideas that are inclusive or race, ethnicity and gender. There is an entire chapter on cultural communication, so it does present information about cross-cultural differences and communication. I would like to see more about gender and more explicitly about race, but some of that content IS here (I just find myself spending more time on this every semester, but I must use supplemental material on topics such as white fragility or privilege and how that impacts interpersonal communication).

Although I hate the price of textbooks, I have been hesitant to use open source materials in the past due to a perceived lesser quality. This book has changed my mind. It isn't perfect, but it saves students 50-100 dollars, and the information that they purchase isn't perfect either. This book presents as professional, and it reads that way as well. Of course, I supplement this book with popular readings and examples, but almost all of the academic content I needed was in this book. I do recommend it.

Reviewed by Joseph Nicola, Professor, Century College on 10/6/21

The text provides a very detailed and granular index and glossary. Very helpful when planning lessons and homework readings. The text is hyperlinked from the index/glossary making it helpful for students. Presents a good explanation of the many... read more

Content is accurate, error-free and unbiased. Does a fair job at covering the large content scope of Interpersonal Comm subject manner. Does not address some popular content covered in an undergrad course on the subject. However the text does provide a nice foundation for class lecture and discussion. Sources are referenced at the end of every chapter.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The text clearly covers the basic principles of the large content subject matter. Does a fare job a covering basic principles that are foundational for the discipline.

The subject of gender identity is not greatly covered. Terms within the LGBTQIA are briefly mentioned but not explained further. A future edition would benefit from this addition.

Good concordance and glossary of terms with page numbers. Easy to read and follow. Has “Key Takeaways” and End of Chapter “Exercises at the end of each chapter. For the most part, the text adequately covers the material needed.

Yes. It appears consistent throughout.

This is a well organized text. That does a fair job at covering that large foundational scope of interpersonal communication. Has “Key Takeaways” and "End of Chapter Exercises" at the end of each chapter.are very nice for class activities and discussion.

Text is organized very well.

Good text and well interfaced. Easy to navigate.

Text is well written with clear paragraphs, bullet points and formatted topic headings. No errors found.

The text does devote a large amount of content to explaining the importance of cultural awareness for being a competent communicator. Provides a good starting foundation to start with class lectures and class discussion. Graphics do depict a diverse student population which is nice to see that intention. Some content that could be added on: *It should be noted that the important subject topic of gender identity is not greatly covered with this text. Terms within the LGBTQIA are briefly mentioned but not explained further. *Only briefly mentioned the importance of Emotional Intelligence but lacks in content and key terms within the subject and practical examples.

The subject of gender identity is not greatly covered. Terms within the LGBTQ+ are briefly mentioned but not explained further. Well designed and layout with some minimal graphics and color-coated topic headings. There could be more for a future printing. Offers some personality and perspective assessment activities that would serve as a good chapter activity.

Reviewed by Aditi Paul, Assistant Professor, Pace University on 8/13/21

The authors do a really good job at covering a variety of introductory, foundational, and contemporary topics pertaining to interpersonal communication. read more

The authors do a really good job at covering a variety of introductory, foundational, and contemporary topics pertaining to interpersonal communication.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The authors do a good job of laying the foundation of the importance of mindfulness in interpersonal communication. However, the discussion surrounding mindfulness and how it should be integrated into different aspects of interpersonal communication was less than thorough. Mindfulness almost came as an afterthought rather than being weaved into the main material in most chapters.

The importance of mindfulness in interpersonal communication is a highly relevant topic, especially in today's age where most of our communication over digital media has become primarily mindless. The authors also do a good job at including new and relevant topics such as body positivity in non-verbal communication, computer-mediated communication apprehension, internet infidelity, and postmodern friendships.

The text was very clear and easy to follow.

Consistency rating: 3

As mentioned earlier, the lack of consistency was evident in the discussion of mindfulness. The authors introduce mindfulness in terms of "attention, intention, and attitude" in the first chapter. But in the rest of the chapters, especially chapter 5 onward, the conversation around mindfulness dwindles.

The modularity of the book was good.

The organization of the book was good. The only critique I would have is the placement of the chapter on culture and interpersonal communication. I would have preferred that topic to be introduced earlier than chapter 6 since a lot of our verbal and non-verbal communication is colored by culture.

The interface of the book was good.

The grammar of the book was good.

The book was culturally sensitive. It included sexually and culturally marginalized groups into the conversation.

Reviewed by Rebecca Oldham, Assistant Professor, Middle Tennessee State University on 5/20/21

This textbook provides a thorough introduction to communication studies. It covers multiple important theories, seminal research, major concepts, and practical suggestions for improving communication. The instructor guide includes many helpful tools, including chapter outlines, presentation slides, in-class activities, practice quiz questions, and links to TEDTalks and YouTube example videos from recent popular films and TV shows. It also comes with a student workbook. This textbook has as many, if not more, supplemental materials as a traditional textbook.

However, some sections of the book could be expounded upon with future revisions. For example, I would have expected to see more variety of research about on marriage beyond Fitzpatricks typologies (e.g., John Gottman's research or references to other romantic relationship research). Other topics I would like to see in future revisions are (1) the rhetorical triangle and (2) the elaboration likelihood model.

However, the comphrehensiveness is still such that instructors additions to this textbook for curriculum would merely be supplemental.

This textbook uses a mixture of seminal and recent research to review major topics of interpersonal communication to supports accuracy. When relevant, the authors describe research studies and methods, not just the findings, which enhances students' science and information literacy.

The textbook is written with up-to-date research and references to recent culture and political issues from the past year (e.g., COVID-19, political polarization). References to mediated communication are very up-to-date, with the exception of TikTok not being mention. The instructor's manual provides excellent examples of concepts in recent popular TV and film that students are sure to enjoy because they are not out-dated and the media is familiar for this age group.

However, I would reframe the concept of relationships in the textbook beyond "marriage" to "committed romantic relationships" given the increase of polyamory/consensual non-monogamy, open relationships, and long-term cohabitation/commitment without marriage. Although marriage is still largely the norm in the United States, the changing landscape of romantic relationship development could be more strongly present in this textbook.

The tone of the authorship balances an academic and conversational tone well-suited for an undergraduate audience. Jargon is well-defined in-text and glossary is provided. The writing is professional and academic, without being esoteric.

No inconsistencies in terminology, theoretical frameworks, nor pedagogical approaches were detected. The authors have clearly reviewed this textbook for quality and consistency.

The textbook is well organized into manageably-sized blocks of text with many headings and subheadings, which helps the reader navigate the text. Instructors should find it easy to identify how parts of this textbook overlap with their existing communcation or relationships course for ready adaptation and integration into existing curriculum.

This textbook is largely organized like other communication textbooks: Introduction/Overview, Identity, Verbal/Nonverbal Communication, Culture, Mediated Communication, and various types of relationships (e.g., family, professional, etc.). It's logical and familiar organization makes it easy to navigate and integrate with standard introducation to communication courses.

Very few issues with distortion of images or overlap in page elements or formatting inconsistencies.

No obvious grammatical errors were detected. The writing style is accessible and easy to read.

Authors clearly took steps to be inclusive and draw attention to issues of equity with regard to gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religion, political identity, and other groups (for examples, see sections on dating scripts, post-modern friendships, racist language, cross-group friendships). I would recommend future revisions include information about African American Vernacular English (AAVE) possible under a section about culture, dialects, or accents, given its direct relevance to communication.

I plan on replacing the textbook for my Interpersonal Communication course with this textbook. In most respects, it is equivalent to the textbook that is currently required. However, it also is an improvement on the current textbook in terms of the density of research citations and in the supplemental material. Instructors of introductory communication courses can feel confident in adopting this textbook to reduce costs, lower educational barriers, without sacrificing educational rigor and quality.

Reviewed by Jennifer Burns, Adjunct Faculty, Middlesex Community College on 3/13/21

Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships, provides an in-depth understanding to the variables that comprise interpersonal communication, I especially appreciate the mindful (know thyself) lens!! read more

After examining the context and student workbook, I was impressed with the content accuracy. I did not pick up on saturation of bias and or stigmatizing language.

Yes, content is up-to-date, and it is encouraged to contact the author with needed updates, and or changes. It is also encouraged to personalize the book to fit the needs of the students!

This textbook is clear, concise and to the point!

The framework and theory are woven throughout the text.

The text is divided into digestible sections, that allow for independent assignment of course material. The formatting is easy on the eyes!

Love the text organization, the content is clear, logical and sequential!

You do need an access code from author to obtain access to the teacher resources.

Did not notice grammatical errors.

I did not perceive this text to be culturally insensitive.

Reviewed by Jessica Martin, Adjunct Instructor, Communication Studies, Portland Community College on 1/5/21

This book presents a comprehensive breakdown of the major types of interpersonal communication. The chapters included in this course text align with the traditional content in an interpersonal communication course. I like how it also includes a... read more

Consistent sources are cited throughout the course text at the end of each chapter, proving its accuracy . The sources appear to be non-bias and overall boost the credibility of the text.

Being that the text includes a chapter primarily focused on mediated communication, I would say that the text is up to date and contains adequate information to support relevancy.

The text is written in a straightforward, simplistic type of manner. This would make it easy for any college student to follow along with the content and keep up with the terminology. Any time a new term is introduced, plenty of examples are given to explain that term. This same format is followed consistently throughout the course text.

Each chapter begins with clear learning outcomes, follows with consistent sub-headers and clear introductions to new terminology. I also noted how each chapters includes exercises to help students further understand course content.

Each chapter is clearly divided up into specific sections to help with lesson planning and overall lecturing materials. This would make it easy to create lecture material for the course.

The text is organized effectively in that there are clear transitions from one topic to another. As mentioned previously, each chapter begins with clear learning objectives, and concludes with exercises, key-takeaways, and a list of key terms.

I would say that overall this course text is easy to navigate. Plenty of charts, tables, and photographs are consistently used to help introduce new ideas and key theories.

I did not note any grammatical errors.

The text includes a chapter titled "Culture and Environmental Factors in Interpersonal Communication," which includes all of the necessary key terms that you would hope to see in an interpersonal communication course.

Reviewed by Prachi Kene, Professor, Rhode Island College on 10/22/20

This book presents a comprehensive overview of the different aspects, types, and models of communication. Further topics of discussion include verbal and non-verbal elements of communication, impact of communication on a variety of relationships (friendships, family, marriage, dating, siblings, coworkers, etc.), mediated communication, and conflict. The book concludes with an exploration of "the dark side of communication." Key concepts discussed throughout the book are listed in the glossary.

The content of the book is informed by advances in the fields of communication and psychology. These sources are acknowledged throughout the content and cited in the references section at the end of each chapter. Information is discussed in an unbiased manner.

The content is up-to-date and includes information about communication and technology. Given the clear organization of the text, it will be amenable to modifications as the impact of technology on communication continues to evolve.

This text is easy to read and follow due to the clear organization and clarity of expression. Exercises and key take aways following each section make the content easy to understand and remember.

The content of this text is consistent and free of contradictions. Multiple perspectives to view and understand concepts are presented in a cogent manner.

Each chapter is divided into smaller and coherent sections that will easily align to lesson planning, creation of lecture materials, and graded tasks/assignments.

This text is well-organized and smoothly transitions from one topic to another. Specifically, each section begins with learning objectives and concludes with exercises and "key takeaways." Chapters are followed by a list of key terms, "real world case study," and quiz that makes the concepts meaningful to the reader.

This book is easy to navigate. Tables, figures, and pictures are used effectively to emphasize the key concepts and ideas. However, occasionally a table spans across multiple pages.

This text does not contain grammatical errors.

The text acknowledges the role of culture in communication and contains a chapter titled, "Cultural and Environmental Factors in Interpersonal Communication." Impact of culture on communication is also infused into other chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction to Human Communication
Chapter 2: Overview of Interpersonal Communication
Chapter 3: Intrapersonal Communication
Chapter 4: Verbal Elements of Communication
Chapter 5: Nonverbal Communication
Chapter 6: Cultural and Environmental Factors in Interpersonal Communication
Chapter 7: Talking and Listening
Chapter 8: Building and Maintaining Relationships
Chapter 9: Conflict in Relationship
Chapter 10: Friendship Relationships
Chapter 11: Family & Marriage Relationships
Chapter 12: Interpersonal Communication in Mediated Contexts
Chapter 13: Interpersonal Relationships at Work
Chapter 14: The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication

Ancillary Material

Instructor Manual
Lecture Slide Deck

About the Book

Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships helps readers examine their own one-on-one communicative interactions using a mindfulness lens. The writing team of Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, and Katherine Thweatt incorporates the latest communication theory and research to help students navigate everyday interpersonal interactions. The 14 chapters in this book cover topics typically taught in an undergraduate interpersonal communication course: family interactions, interpersonal dynamics, language, listening, nonverbal communication, and romantic relationships, as well as exploring emerging areas such as self-compassion, body positivity, friendships, and “the dark side”. The writing takes on a purposefully informal tone to engage readers. Each chapter is broken into different sections that have unique instructional outcomes, key takeaways, and exercises, and concludes with real-world case studies and sample quiz questions. Also included is an extensive glossary with over 350 definitions.

About the Contributors

Jason S. Wrench (Ed.D., West Virginia University) is a professor in the Department of Communication at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Dr. Wrench specializes in workplace learning and performance, or the intersection of instructional communication and organizational communication. His varied research interests include workplace learning and human performance improvement, computer-mediated communication, interpersonal communication, empirical research methods, family communication, humor, risk/crisis communication, and supervisor-subordinate interactions. Dr. Wrench regularly consults with individuals and organizations on workplace communication and as a professional speech coach for senior executives.

Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter (Ph.D., Kent State University) is a professor in the Department of Communication and assistant dean of international affairs for the College of Media and Communication. She is also an associate professor of Communication Studies at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. She teaches the basic interpersonal communication course. Her research areas include mass media effects, father-daughter communication, mentoring, advisor-advisee relationships, family studies, religious communication, humor, and interpersonal communication. She has published over 70 articles that have appeared in several peer-reviewed journals, such as Communication Research Reports, Southern Journal of Communication , and Journal of Intercultural Communication Research . She has also published numerous instructional ancillaries and materials. She is also a coauthor of Organizational communication: Theory, Research, and Practice (2014, Flat World Knowledge). Dr. Punyanunt coedited The Impact of Social Media in Modern Romantic Relationship (2017, Lexington).

Katherine S. Thweatt (Ed.D, West Virginia University) is an associate professor at the State University of New York at Oswego. Dr. Thweatt’s areas of interest are interpersonal communication, instructional communication, and health communication. She has published in the areas of teasing, teacher immediacy and misbehaviors, cognitive flexibility, and healthcare research. Healthcare publications involved shared medical appointments, heart failure, and infectious disease.

Contribute to this Page

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Ocean Frontier Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Information Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Curtis Martin,
Bertrum H. MacDonald

Published: November 10, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972
Reader Comments

Today, many science communicators are using social media to share scientific information with citizens, but, as research has shown, fostering conversational exchanges remains a challenge. This largely qualitative study investigated the communication strategies applied by individual scientists and environmental non-governmental organizations on Twitter and Instagram to determine whether particular social media practices encourage two-way conversations between science communicators and citizens. Data from Twitter and Instagram posts, interviews with the communicators, and a survey of audience members were triangulated to identify emergent communication strategies and the resulting engagement; provide insight into why particular practices are employed by communicators; and explain why audiences choose to participate in social media conversations with communicators. The results demonstrate that the application of interpersonal communication strategies encourage conversational engagement, in terms of the number of comments and unique individuals involved in conversations. In particular, using selfies (images and videos), non-scientific content, first person pronoun-rich captions, and responding to comments result in the formation of communicator-audience relationships, encouraging two-way conversations on social media. Furthermore, the results indicate that Instagram more readily supports the implementation of interpersonal communication strategies than Twitter, making Instagram the preferred platform for promoting conversational exchanges. These findings can be applicable to diverse communicators, subjects, audiences, and environments (online and offline) in initiatives to promote awareness and understanding of science.

Citation: Martin C, MacDonald BH (2020) Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972

Editor: Rashid Mehmood, King Abdulaziz University, SAUDI ARABIA

Received: October 3, 2019; Accepted: October 24, 2020; Published: November 10, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Martin, MacDonald. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: “Ethical approval for this study was obtained at Dalhousie University, which operates within the terms of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2018). In compliance with this ethics approval, which assured anonymity and confidentiality to all participants, the original data cannot be made available. As the text of the Twitter and Instagram posts assembled could be searched online and the participants thereby disclosed, de-identifying the social media data is not possible. Similarly, the interview transcripts contain specific information related to the social media practices of each of the communicators, and could be used to identify the individual or organization participants. However, all anonymized aggregate data from the survey, as well as anonymized quotations from the interviews and survey, necessary to replicate the study’s results are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Funding: BHM 435-2015-1705 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Human activities—both past and present—are having detrimental impacts on the earth’s environmental systems: fishing practices have forced fish stocks to critical condition [ 1 ], many of the planet’s species are being driven to extinction at an alarming rate [ 2 ], and continuous burning of fossil-fuels has created a global climate emergency [ 3 ]. If these harmful environmental practices are to be mitigated, they need to be managed through policy decisions at the science-policy interface where various actors, barriers, and enablers affect the flow of information from researchers to decision-makers [ 4 ]. Citizens are an important group that interacts with numerous stakeholders at this interface. If citizens are to be effective participants in decisions and solutions to address deteriorating environmental conditions, relevant research information must be communicated effectively to this diverse group. However, this communication is not a trivial activity, as cultivating environmental science literacy has proven to be a major challenge [ 5 – 8 ]. Climate change literacy is often cited to illustrate this challenge; misunderstanding is still widespread among citizens, due to a combination of denial, intentional obfuscation of facts, and personal values taking precedent over scientific information [ 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 ].

Although risks are associated with communicating science via social media (such as being subject to internet trolls and anti-science users [e.g., 11 , 12 ]), the internet and social media provide science communicators with significant opportunities to share policy-relevant information with citizens, as such tools are now the main information source for the public, including for scientific and policy information [ 13 , 14 ]. As of 2019 an estimated 4.4 billion people use the internet, with nearly 3.5 billion active on social media [ 15 ]. The latest statistics show that billions of social media posts are created daily on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media platforms, and the numbers are increasing [ 15 , 16 ]. Although important barriers to internet access still exist [e.g., 17 , 18 ], new media are generally user-friendly and widely available; simple and quick web searches can break down technical and financial barriers to information, and social media platforms are primarily inexpensive and accessible internationally [ 19 , 20 ]. Virtual communities can be formed online to facilitate public engagement with science, and citizens now have greater opportunity to participate in science communication, bypassing traditional information “gatekeepers” (e.g., scientific journals, popular media, government reports) to aid in information dissemination, and increase public awareness of important scientific issues [ 19 , 21 – 23 ].

Numerous researchers have explored whether relationships exist between social media posting behaviours of communicators and audience engagement [e.g., 24 – 30 ]. Research on this subject has been mainly exploratory to date, with studies covering a range of social media platforms and methods. At present, the results indicate that communication techniques can play an important role in generating audience engagement for both individual and organization communicators, but that science communicators have typically struggled to encourage conversations on social media, particularly with citizens exposed to such information for the first time [ 31 – 33 ]. Some studies have noted that science communicators have given lower priority to strategies that would promote engagement via online conversations [ 34 ]. Researchers have called for further exploration to understand better the challenges of facilitating science conversations on social media, to identify additional means of improving engagement, and to investigate whether communicator strategy and audience engagement patterns persist across communication topics [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 35 ]. In particular, they have called for small scale studies that offer detailed insights that big data approaches are less likely to provide [ 35 ].

This study applied a mixed methods approach to investigate communication strategies and two-way conversation activities of individual and non-governmental organization science communicators on two different social media platforms (Twitter and Instagram). The study triangulated data obtained through qualitative methods to: identify emergent communication strategies and resulting audience engagement; gain insight into why particular practices are employed by communicators; and determine why members of the audiences choose to participate in social media conversations with communicators.

Literature review

Science communication on social media.

The ability to communicate science to a wide variety of audiences is important. Scientific information is often needed for effective policy decisions, and strong science communication can promote the use of relevant information in environmental decisions [ 4 , 36 , 37 ]. Scientific information should be actively shared with citizens. Not only is the majority of scientific research publicly funded, citizens also need access to scientific information to make informed input to decisions on subjects relating to public policy, technological advancement, political preferences, and personal environmental practices, among others [ 26 , 38 – 42 ]. Communicating science to audiences beyond the academic community is increasingly seen as a responsibility of scientists, and is in some cases central to receiving research funding [ 40 , 43 – 45 ].

Scientists have been turning to social media to communicate the results of their research [ 46 , 47 ]. These media are significant because they grant communicators a platform for two-way exchanges with members of the public. Previously, the common and accepted communication model was based on resolving a perceived knowledge deficit to improve public understanding of science [ 48 – 50 ]. In this “first-order” way of thinking it was assumed that citizens lacked knowledge and acted as passive receivers of information. Thus, solely providing people with the necessary information was intended to lead to greater understanding and awareness of public issues [ 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 ]. “Second-order” communication that is reflexive, deliberative, and depends on dialogic, two-way information exchange is now thought to be a better model for sharing information with citizens [ 49 , 51 , 52 ]. This latter model promotes knowledge co-production between researchers and citizens by allowing people to bring their ideas and values to the conversation, and facilitates the formation of trust relationships between researchers and citizens [ 48 , 49 , 53 – 56 ]. A third participation model of science communication has also been proposed in the belief that all involved can contribute to decisions that affect them [ 57 , 58 ]. Social media—including blogs, microblogs, social networks, podcasts, and curatorial tools—offer the potential to facilitate deliberative communications, allowing citizens to participate in research discussions online by responding to information, sharing it with others, and/or creating new science communication resources [ 46 , 59 , 60 ].

Non-governmental organizations and individual scientists as communicators on social media

Social media have become significant to organizational practice [ 61 – 63 ]. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in particular have been credited with pioneering the use of social networking tools, prior to their use by government agencies and private companies [ 64 ]. As a result, social media—including Twitter and Instagram—are used by many NGOs around the world. According to a recent report, 77% of NGOs use Twitter, and 50% use Instagram, with the majority posting on both Twitter and Instagram at least once per week [ 64 ]. NGOs of all sizes are reaching large numbers on both platforms with some building massive audiences. For example, Amnesty International has over 1 million Twitter followers ( www.twitter.com/amnesty ), and over 500,000 Instagram followers ( www.instagram.com/amnesty ).

NGOs cite numerous benefits associated with social media use, including fundraising, increased brand awareness, volunteer recruitment, improved event organization, and more effective communications [ 64 – 66 ]. Through social media, organizations can share information, participate in conversations, and build relationships with their audiences [ 65 – 68 ]. Nonetheless, various studies show that NGOs have not fully capitalized on the affordances granted by social media: organizations have typically been found to focus on one-way communication models characteristic of a knowledge-deficit, using social media primarily as a broadcast tool, similar to the practices observed for some government agencies [ 25 , 29 , 68 – 72 ].

Individual scientists have been relatively slow in adopting social media [ 73 – 77 ]. According to a survey by Nature, an estimated 13% of scientists use Twitter regularly, with 50% of those engaging in scientific discussions on the platform [ 78 ]. According to another study, it is estimated that a smaller portion of scientists active on Twitter also use Instagram [ 79 ]. One reason for slow acceptance is that science outreach is often not incentivized for researchers; researchers interested in communication activities are therefore often required to pursue them on a volunteer basis in addition to their professional duties, creating a time barrier [ 79 , 80 ]. Furthermore, scientists—especially those working in government and industry—are sometimes discouraged from open communications [e.g., 81 – 83 ]. In other words, broad and public communication is typically not regarded as a valuable activity for researchers [ 79 ]. There is also evidence that individual scientists avoid communicating via the tools due to a general lack of knowledge on how the tools function, questions surrounding the rigor of scientific discussions on social media, and incorrect perceptions that the tools are ineffective as a means of scientific communication [ 75 – 77 , 79 ].

Numerous studies have demonstrated the strong communication potential that social media provide to scientists [e.g., 84 – 86 ]. Social media afford scientists the ability to build their “personal brand” by communicating their research and other related subjects [ 86 ]. Additionally, social media provide an avenue through which scientists can communicate to the public, which, although not new, is a more common and more requested pursuit for researchers today [ 87 – 90 ]. However, research shows that scientists utilizing social media are mainly sharing research within their own fields, with outreach to the wider public remaining a lower priority [ 75 – 77 , 79 ]. Some scientists also over-emphasize the importance of blogs as a tool for communicating with public audiences; blogs were previously thought to be useful for encouraging dialogues with citizens, but in practice have not been widely successful in reaching non-scientific audiences [ 79 , 91 ].

As illustrated above, science communicators have had difficulty in engaging citizens in two-way conversations on social media, which has led to calls for more innovative/inventive strategies to engage citizens with research, predominantly on subjects linked to important public policy issues [e.g., 92 ]. Furthermore, social media communication strategies often vary among communicators, including individuals and organizations, which affect whether communication is effective [e.g., 69 , 93 ].

This study investigated strategies to engage people with scientific and policy information on social media. Research indicates that social media practices can affect how audience members engage with posts shared by individual and organization communicators [ 31 ]. Therefore, the first research question addressed by this study is:

RQ1: How do individual and NGO communicators approach sharing scientific and policy information on social media, and what particular strategies do they apply in their activity to engage with their audiences?

Furthermore, science communicators have typically struggled to encourage conversations on social media, despite evidence of two-way conversations being more effective for information sharing than one-way transmission [ 32 , 33 , 49 , 51 , 52 ]. Therefore, the second research question addressed by this study is:

RQ2: Do particular social media strategies encourage two-way conversations between science communicators and online audiences, and what characteristics of the strategies encourage communicators and audiences to participate in two-way conversations?

The goal of this research was to identify communication practices that encourage two-way conversations between communicators and citizens on social media. If particular techniques are more engaging, they could be adopted or prioritized by communicators to improve how scientific and policy information is shared on social media, and ultimately enable citizens to participate in decision-making processes.

To address the research questions, the activity of four scientists acting as recognized science communicators using individual Twitter and Instagram accounts and the activity of three environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) using organization Twitter and Instagram accounts to share scientific and policy information were studied. This number of communicators was selected to consider the research questions in a detailed, qualitatively data-rich manner (consistent with calls for such studies; [e.g., 24 ]) rather than be representative of all scientists and eNGOs communicating on social media. This study was conducted with established qualitative research methods appropriate for the sample size of communicators and volume and types of data collected [e.g., 94 ]. This research included: 1) an analysis of public Twitter and Instagram data of each of the seven account holders to identify practices implemented by communicators and resulting follower engagement in two-way conversations; 2) interviews with the individual and eNGO communicators to determine their social media strategies; 3) a survey of audience members involved in two-way conversations to determine why they participate in conversations on social media; and 4) an audience “biography” analysis to determine whether the communicators are engaging a scientific, non-scientific, or mixed audience on social media ( Fig 1 ). Following collection, the aggregated social media data were triangulated to develop thorough understanding of social media strategies used by the communicators.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g001

Ethics approval for this study was obtained in the ethics review process established by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Board at Dalhousie University. As required by the ethics approval, informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to the interviews and the survey. The social media data collection complied with the Terms of Service for both Twitter and Instagram. Twitter was selected for this study because it is actively used for science communication and has been studied to a greater extent than other platforms [ 35 , 75 – 78 ]. Instagram was selected because it is a newer platform, and fewer studies on the potential of Instagram as a science communication tool have been completed to date [ 35 , 78 ]. Studying usage of the two platforms, which offer different features, allowed determining whether the communicators were consistent in their application of social media strategies.

Account identification

Following the requirements of ethics approval, all of the participants were treated anonymously. The four individual scientists are located in four countries in North America and Europe. These scientists were chosen from The SciCommunity, an Instagram community that uses social media to make science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics more accessible ( instagram.com/thescicommunity ). The individual communicators were selected based on the order in which they joined the community. Beginning with the earliest community members (i.e., most established communicators), scientists who use personal Twitter and Instagram accounts to communicate primarily in English frequently each week, with accumulated 10,000 followers or more (Twitter and Instagram combined), were invited to participate in the study. Invitations were extended until four communicators agreed to participate in the study. The three eNGOs, also with many thousands of followers, were selected for their focus on sharing environmental information on Twitter and Instagram regularly each week, and for the scale of the organization (one local, one national, and one international). Invitations were extended to eNGOs that met the criteria until three agreed to participate in the study, Environmental NGOs were studied due to their growing role as science communicators to diverse audiences [ 63 , 95 ].

Social media data collection and coding

Publicly available Twitter and Instagram data posted by the seven communicators were collected for four weeks from July 30 to August 26, 2018, including all Twitter posts (TRPs), Instagram posts (IGPs), Instagram stories (IGSs), and all associated TRP and IGP comments. As this study followed a largely qualitative approach to investigate the social media practices of the communicators, one month was judged to be sufficient for analysis and triangulation with the interviews. During the interviews (see below), communicators were asked to focus their responses on their most recent social media activity. Twitter posts were collected once per day using the desktop version ( twitter.com ) one week after they were posted to allow time for audience engagement (from August 6 to September 2, 2018). A screenshot of the TRPs recorded the date/time of posting, captured images, and preserved a “snapshot” of the content and engagement. In the case of multiple Twitter posts together (i.e., a thread), the posts within a thread were captured and treated as a single post, unless posts occurred over multiple days.

Instagram posts were collected from the desktop version ( instagram.com ) in the same manner as TRPs. Instagram stories were collected twice daily to ensure none were missed (as stories expire after 24 hours). Screen capture software was used to record the video and audio associated with each IGS post. Each set of stories was saved as a video file and the stories were separated into threads based on the time between posting and topic continuity. Engagement data from IGSs are not public and were not captured.

The Twitter and Instagram data were organized in spreadsheets for statistical analysis in Rstudio version 1.1.456. For the TRPs, five spreadsheet files were created: original content, comments, handles, names, and reply type (response from the original communicator vs. a secondary social media user). The content files contained two columns—post caption data, and hashtag data—with each row representing a unique post. The other files were organized similarly, with each row containing data on either comments, handles, names, or reply types associated with a unique post. This process was used for IGPs, but only for original content, comments, and handles were created, as data for names and reply type are not recorded within Instagram posts. Each TRP, IGP, and IGS was categorized for the content characteristics [ S1 Table ] using codes based on topics listed as central to the goals of organizations, and the Instagram description for The SciCommunity. Because the Instagram story data were recorded in audio/visual formats, rather than text, the IGSs were only subjected to content coding. In total, 840 social media posts and 1399 comments were collected and analyzed.

Text analysis

The Twitter and Instagram post captions were subjected to text analysis using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 (LIWC2015) software, which was used to identify the percentage of personal pronouns used in social media posts by the communicators, as such pronouns can affect how interactions between communicators and their audiences are perceived [ 96 ]. LIWC has been validated and used in numerous published research studies [ 75 , 97 ]. English and non-special character data in the text captions posted by each communicator were analyzed as a single dataset, aided by Excel. The analysis was conducted separately for the Twitter and Instagram data for each communicator. Individual and eNGO scores were aggregated, as both communicator groups were analyzed under the same conditions.

Interview data collection and analysis

The owners or representatives of the seven accounts were invited via email to participate in semi-structured interviews and to maintain anonymity were randomly assigned a code (e.g., IND1 for an individual scientist or ORG1 for an eNGO). The interview questions were designed to investigate how the communicators viewed their use of social media generally, along with their goals/objectives, their posting strategies, and their participation in social media conversations. The interviews, conducted by phone or Skype, were audio recorded. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to three rounds of coding, following established analysis processes [ 98 – 100 ], to draw out the themes from the textual data: an initial round to determine specific codes for each relevant interview response, a second round to create broader grouping of associated codes into categories, and a final round to restructure categories into overarching themes of all interviews. In the initial round, coding was conducted by one researcher, followed by a second researcher. The coding was compared and where discrepancies occurred, the researchers discussed the variations and resolved the differences. In subsequent rounds as the themes were drawn from the underlying coding, the second researcher reviewed the theme extraction to ensure consistency of application.

Survey data collection and analysis

An online survey, open from September 10 to October 31, 2018, was administered using Opinio software to query engaged users about their participation in two-way social media conversations. Individuals who posted English comments in two-way conversations on Twitter or Instagram posts of each of the accounts were invited to complete the survey. The participants were invited if they were involved in a conversation with a) one of the communicators in the study, or b) another user who commented on a communicator post. A two-way conversation was defined as a comment that received at least one response, with both the commenter and respondent invited to complete the survey. Accounts that were deleted or changed to a different “handle” by users before invitations were sent out, accounts that did not belong to individuals, accounts that were obvious trolls/bots (based on their social media profile and/or comments), and the seven accounts of the individual scientists and eNGOs in the study were excluded. A total of 425 conversationalists were invited to participate in the survey via either Twitter or Instagram (i.e., the platform in which a conversation occurred) using a unique comment that tagged the individual in a Twitter or Instagram post and asked to follow a link that directed them to a webpage containing the survey link. When users conducted conversations on posts of more than one of the accounts in the study, random selection was used to decide which account the user was contacted about. The participants were treated anonymously and limited to completing the survey once. The quantitative data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, and the free text responses were coded for content themes.

Audience analysis

The Twitter and Instagram biographies of the individuals invited to complete the survey were analyzed statistically with the aid of Rstudio version 1.1.456 to determine if they self-identified as scientists on social media. The individuals were classified as scientists if their biography mentioned science or science disciplines (e.g., neuroscientist, biochemistry), or if their social media profile pictures clearly depicted them as scientists.

Because the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between communication techniques and audience engagement, particularly two-way conversations across Twitter and Instagram, analysis of the activity data from the two social media platforms, the interviews, and the survey text responses and demographic information were integrated for each communicator in the presentation of the results. This approach triangulates each communicator’s social media practices (both their views about their strategies and actual practices) with audience engagement, while highlighting similarities and differences in the strategies and engagement between each communicator and as either an individual communicator or eNGO. Because this study connects the application of strategies and resulting engagement throughout the social media activity of the communicators, social media data were analyzed in aggregate (i.e., strategies and engagement across all posts), rather than on a post-by-post basis.

Three strategy filters

The interviews and the Twitter and Instagram data show that the two communicator groups utilize three types of “filters” to guide their posting activity. First, the seven communicators operate within implicitly accepted social practices on each platform (i.e., platform conventions). Second, the two communicator groups apply specific activity strategies related to posting frequency and type of media used in posts. Third, the seven communicators implement interpersonal communication strategies in their posts. These three filters are implemented in a hierarchical manner, that is, the activity strategies are applied according to platform conventions, and the interpersonal strategies are applied in accordance with both the activity strategies and platform conventions. Interpersonal communication and strategies emerged as important characteristics of the communicators’ social media activity. Interpersonal communication has been the focus of extensive research [ 101 – 104 ]. The succinct definition by Braithwaite, Schrodt, & Carr [ 105 ], “interpersonal communication is the production and processing of verbal and nonverbal messages between two or a few persons,” is pertinent in this study as this definition accounts for communication centred on individuals, focused on interactions involving exchange of messages, and on development of relationships between the participants. As is shown below, the strategies that communicators implemented to promote interpersonal communication gave attention to one or more of these aspects.

Platform conventions

The interviews with the seven communicators show that accepted social media conventions play an important role in dictating the techniques applied by them, as they recognize that adherence to the common platform practices that have emerged over time will ensure their posts remain consistent with the expectations of social media users. The communicators expressed similar views of how they plan and implement strategies based on the platform conventions. For example, all of the communicators noted that Twitter tends to attract a more educated and/or issue-cognizant audience seeking news-centric information, and that Instagram draws a larger general/non-scientific audience interested in more personal multimedia posts, and therefore the seven communicators post accordingly to meet audience expectations (e.g., “You can share photos on Twitter, but it’s more visible and accessible on Instagram” (IND 4 interview)). Additional strategies applied by the communicators (discussed below), are implemented in compliance with implicit platform conventions.

Activity strategies

The individual and eNGO communicators implement particular strategies related to post frequency, platform priority, and media type used in posts—hereafter referred to as activity strategies—although with some variability. The eNGOs strive to post at regularly scheduled intervals, while maintaining flexibility to react when necessary. For example, one eNGO representative stated: “[we’re] doing as much planning as possible, but trying to leave in the flexibility to react when there is a more timely or necessary content need” (ORG2 interview). This approach allows the eNGOs to present well-researched information that is backed by evidence, while still giving the organizations an opportunity to share topical content and participate in social media “conversations” regarding breaking news or unexpected events related to their work (e.g., an interesting animal encounter during field work). In practice, ORG1 and ORG3 post on social media about 20 times/week ( Fig 2 ). ORG2, however, posts on Twitter and Instagram much more frequently, at a rate of >120 times/week ( Fig 2 ), because it “seems to be the most effective” for encouraging engagement (ORG2 interview). The individual scientists post in a less scheduled manner than the eNGOs, mainly when they feel inspired to do so. IND3 and IND4 post at similar rates to ORG1 and ORG3 (about 20–25 times/week), but IND1 and IND2 less than 10 times/week ( Fig 2 ). The individual scientists indicated that frequency is not as important as quality. They typically share based on more mentally “dynamic” factors (e.g., creativity, curiosity, inspiration, interest), and consequently do not feel motivated to post at high frequencies, which the individuals find to be overexerting or time consuming. As one communicator said, “I’ve kind of come to the point where it’s best for me just to post when I like, when [it] suits me best” (IND4 interview). Although the individual scientists did not discuss whether posting at high frequencies is an effective engagement strategy (other than ensuring the time between posts is not excessive, e.g., weeks), they did mention that they believed that the excitement/passion they are able to convey based on inspiration can be quite engaging for their audience.

Colours indicate the platform distribution of Twitter posts (TRPs), Instagram stories (IGSs), and Instagram posts (IGPs).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g002

The communicators decide which platform they use based on a mix of platform affordances and level of engagement received. However, the eNGOs and individual scientists do not prioritize the same platforms, in regard to intended strategies, or how they are translated into practice. ORG2 prefers Instagram over Twitter, as Instagram is seen as more aligned with the organization’s overall goals: “our preference, or our top performing platform I should say, has been Instagram … it’s still at a point of very rapid growth and evolution in terms of the functions or things you can and can’t do on the particular platform. So that’s lent itself to being a top performer” (ORG2 interview). ORG1 and ORG3 do not have expressed platform preferences. Nevertheless, based on actual post frequency, all three of the eNGOs prioritize Twitter over Instagram, sharing most of their posts (67–76%) on Twitter ( Fig 2 ). For ORG2, this practice is not consistent with the stated platform preference noted during the interview. All three of the individual scientists said they prefer Instagram—especially IGSs. For example, IND3 emphasizes posting on Instagram because that is “where [my] biggest audience is,” while also noting the importance of functionality: “I love how many dimensions there are to using Instagram. You can do pictures, you can do posts, you can do videos and stories, you can live stream. It’s so … versatile in how you can use it that it’s been incredible as a creator” (IND3 interview). The actual post frequency corroborates the interview responses of the individual scientists, as 69–85% of all their social media posts were shared on Instagram, particularly IGSs, with 50–77% of all posts shared via IGSs ( Fig 2 ).

All of the communicators post text, images, and videos in accordance with platform conventions. The two groups of communicators use media types (text, images, and video) in a similar proportion of posts, but the individuals use text differently. Both the individuals and the eNGOs include text in all posts, images in the majority of posts (56–98%), and videos in a smaller fraction of posts (2–36%) ( Fig 3 ). However, on Instagram, where the character limit is 2200 for each post, the individuals post an average of 244 words/caption, whereas the eNGOs use fewer words (an average of 102 words/caption) ( Table 1 ). On Twitter, where the post length is more limited (280 characters), all communicators post a similar average of words/caption (28 for eNGOs and 30 for individuals) ( Table 1 ). In addition, none of the individual scientists use Twitter to share videos, whereas two of the three eNGOs do ( Fig 3 ).

Proportion of social media posts by individuals and eNGOs containing A) images, and B) videos/GIFs, July 30-August 26, 2018. Colours indicate the relative proportion of posts with images or videos/GIFs in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t001

Interpersonal strategies

The seven communicators all noted in their interview responses that they aim to integrate interpersonal strategies into their social media activities. Some of these strategies are non-conversational, resulting in no direct interactions between the communicators and audience members. Six of the communicators stated that humanizing social media content is important for establishing personal connections with audiences. To humanize their organizations the representatives of ORG1 and ORG3 stated they display images of scientists or other staff members in posts. As one eNGO representative said, “It’s good for people to get to know who… the researchers or advocates are behind each of the stories and who’s working on them and why. I think [that’s] useful for people… that human aspect is important, and… giving people a chance to get to know who’s behind the controls is a good thing” (ORG1 Interview). However, the ORG1 and ORG3 representatives also stated that posting selfies and humanizing their organizations is one of their biggest social media challenges, particularly as the organization staff are often not willing to be seen in social media photos/videos, and because the organizations employ multiple staff members to create content for social media (ORG1 and ORG3 Interviews). In practice, ORG1 and ORG3 include selfies in a small fraction of their posts (14% and 15% of posts respectively), whereas ORG2 does not post any selfies on social media ( Fig 4 ).

Colours indicate relative proportion of posts with selfies in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g004

Selfies are a key means of humanizing the individual scientists since displaying their faces allows people to become comfortable with them. The individual scientists stated they use selfies to convey authenticity and to encourage/invite their audience to engage with them. As IND3 said, “I do try to be the most honest version of myself that I can display,” which “is important because it helps people to understand and also care about what you’re communicating” (IND3 interview). Similarly, IND2 noted: “that’s why I like to film in a selfie mode, because also it… puts a face on a scientist. People like to connect with other people” (IND2 interview). IND1 also expressed a similar view: “that’s one hundred percent to be human… even if you post a photo with your science, or with your code, or whatever… I think even in my facial expressions I try to make it about inviting people in” (IND1 interview). Selfie strategies are evident in the actual posting activity of the individual scientists, who collectively utilize selfies far more frequently than the eNGOs, incorporating selfies into more than 30% of posts ( Fig 4 ). Additionally, selfie-style videos are important for the individuals, who noted they speak directly to their camera to convey a sense of talking directly to their audiences. The individuals believe these videos are especially effective for communicating on a personal level and establishing communicator-audience relationships. For example, IND3 explained how selfie-style videos feel very authentic and conversational:

I think video content, especially… a selfie-style video… feels pretty intimate actually. It feels like you’re having a one-on-one conversation, and it really helps… to build relationships with the audience. Because it feels very personal to have someone speaking right to you via the phone in your hand. (IND3 interview)

Selfie-style videos are commonly implemented as a strategy by the individual scientists, as a substantial proportion of their video posts (38–67%) include selfie-style audio ( Fig 5 ). In contrast, the eNGO communicators rarely use selfie-style audio in their video posts (5–7%), generally opting for no audio at all, or music-based audio ( Fig 5 ).

*Two or no videos posted (IND2 and ORG1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g005

In addition to practices to humanize their social media activity, the communicators used non-conversational interpersonal communication strategies linked to the social media topics of their posts. Educating audiences through social media is an important goal of the eNGOs, and they give particular attention to the manner in which education is conducted. They emphasize a two-way model, rather than a top-down approach where information only flows from communicator to audience. For example, ORG1 pointed out: “I don’t know if it’s ‘teaching’… We don't want to be talk ‘down-y’” (ORG1 interview). The eNGOs also try to balance “heavier” educational/scientific content with “lighter” topics—such as posts focused on funny/interesting animals—and they use metaphors to make science content more accessible for their audiences. Similarly, the eNGOs stated they aim to make the content fun and interactive by presenting compelling information and mixing in humour. In addition, the eNGOs aim to build trust with their audiences by ensuring all of their posts are backed by scientific evidence. Overall, the social media activity shows that the eNGO communicators post consistently on topic (only an average of 9% of eNGO posts were off-topic, i.e., not clearly linked to the organization’s goals or mission, Fig 6 ), deciding to include entertainment and humour in posts topically linked to the organization’s goals/mission.

Colours indicate the relative proportion of off-topic posts in the TRPs, IGSs, and IGPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g006

Similar to the eNGOs, the individual scientists exercise two-way communication practices to avoid talking down to their audiences and to balance the educational component of their social media activity with lighter content such as humour and entertainment. One individual emphasized this sentiment, describing the educational component as “teaching, but with an engagement model… helping people to engage with educational content” (IND3 interview). However, in contrast to the eNGOs, the individual scientists mainly balance the content by including personal social media topics—such as daily activities that might be unrelated to science—and expressed a clear intention to post personal content using IGSs. For example, IND1 discussed how posting personal content on IGSs helps to portray scientists as people, i.e., regular individuals who have interests outside of science:

I think that Instagram stories humanize [science] more than anything else. Just because they’re quick, they don’t have to be high quality… Sometimes [content is] not exciting enough to warrant a whole post on Instagram, but you know, people like seeing it on the stories. Because it’s a way for them to check in with me, and like, what I am doing between posts. (IND1 interview)

The individuals also focus on expressing emotions in their post topics, and try to authentically display themselves, and scientists more generally, as warm, kind people as opposed to strictly knowledge experts absent of approachable qualities. In addition to ensuring their posts are all evidence-based (a strategy emphasized by the eNGOs as well), the individual scientists work to establish personal connections with their audiences in order to build trust. In highlighting use of selfie-style videos, IND3 said, “Recording an off the cuff video just kind of… confers some level of honesty. Because it’s you just free stream talking as if in conversation. And so, I try not to overly produce anything. Because I want people to see… we’re just talking, this is not so serious. We’re just having conversations, let’s delve in” (IND3 interview). The social media data demonstrate that the individual scientists share a larger proportion of off-topic posts than eNGOs (an average of 32% of posts were off-topic), many of which are about everyday activities ( Fig 6 ). The text analysis of social media posts via LIWC shows that individual scientists also use more first person personal pronouns in their posts than the eNGO communicators; 3.4% and 5.1% of words in captions posted by the individuals on Twitter and Instagram respectively were first person pronouns ( Table 1 ). In comparison, the eNGOs used such pronouns less frequently (2.1% of words on Twitter, 1.5% of words on Instagram).

The seven communicators also implement interpersonal communication strategies via two-way conversations with their audiences. The eNGO communicators stated that they prioritize responding to audience comments on their posts, especially when people ask questions. The eNGOs also put calls to action (such as requests for audience members to sign petitions or join meetings) and/or questions in their posts, and endeavour to make their posts captivating, all designed to encourage audience members to participate in social media conversations. In addition, the eNGO communicators view two-way conversations as an opportunity to establish personal connections with their audiences and form communicator-audience relationships. For example, ORG2 said that “it’s difficult to build that relationship without having a conversation. So… enabling the opportunity to interact one-on-one with the individual… [is an occasion] to be able … to take that next step in that relationship” (ORG2 interview). Nonetheless, the eNGO communicators did not particularly feel they have been successful in forming communicator-audience relationships, as noted by ORG1: “I don’t feel like I have much of a personal relationship with the followers, no” (ORG1 interview). While the eNGO representatives stated that engaging with audience members was important, in practice, ORG1 and ORG2 respond to few, if any comments (responding to less than 1% of comments per post) ( Fig 7 ). Although ORG3 responds to about 8% of comments per post, it still does so much less frequently than all individuals (who responded to an average of 15–34% of comments per post).

Colours indicate the relative proportion of comments responded to on TRPs and IGPs. Numbers on top of bars indicate the total number of comments responded to during the study period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g007

In the interviews, the four individual scientists also discussed interpersonal communication strategies via two-way conversations with their audiences. They prioritize responding to audience comments (particularly questions), put calls to action and/or questions in their social media posts to encourage a conversations, and strive to establish personal connections with their audiences and form communicator-audience relationships via two-way conversations. This view was obvious in a statement by IND3: “A lot of the time we’re just building relationships, we’re laughing. I’ll post something funny, and someone will reply… Further, it’s important for me to let people know that scientists do care about them… We care about individuals more than people realize… So it’s important for me to address people’s concerns, and talk with them, and share with them information that they’re curious about” (IND3 interview). In practice, the individual scientists respond to a substantially larger proportion of audience comments than the eNGOs (15–34% of comments per post ( Fig 7 )). The individual scientists also highlighted that they have been able to form communicator-audience relationships through their social media activity, as evidenced by a comment by IND4: “Yeah, [meeting up with an audience member in person for the first time] was great. It was weird in the fact that it wasn’t a complete stranger. So although it was the first time that you met them, you were talking to them like you had known them for ages” (IND4 interview). One individual scientist noted that although typical conversations on posts might be short, the conversations can extend beyond single posts once communicator-audience relationships are formed:

Oh my gosh, they’re ongoing. They’re very ongoing. There are many examples of people messaging me to ask for advice … and [they] almost always follow up. So I had one woman applying to a … program, and we actually even met in person because she happened to be visiting, and we exchanged some advice and conversation. And a year later she followed up and let me know she got into the program … and we had been chatting in the interim, but not so much. But many times people will follow up and let me know how it went, and say thank you, and say, “Oh I also learned this, you can tell people that next time” … So now we’ve turned a one-time interaction into a long-term resource, which I think is cool. (IND3 interview)

In contrast, the eNGO communicators noted during interviews their intention to build relationships with audience members through social media, but did not indicate that they had been successful in doing so.

Audience engagement on communicator posts

Triangulation of the social media and survey data was carried out to understand why audience members decided to engage with social media posts shared by the communicators. The individual scientists receive more conversational engagement than the eNGOs, that is, the individuals receive more and longer comments, and generate a larger number of direct interactions with unique conversationalists ( Table 2 ). The individuals receive 20–42 comments/post/10,000 followers on Instagram, and 0.8–60 comments/post/10,000 followers on Twitter whereas the organizations receive 1–4 comments/post/10,000 followers and almost no (0.05–0.4) comments/post/10,000 followers on Instagram and Twitter, respectively ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t002

Comments on the individual scientists’ posts ranged from 11–26 words in length on Instagram and 9–26 words on Twitter ( Table 2 ). In contrast, comments on the eNGO communicators’ posts ranged from 5–7 words on Instagram and 2–15 words on Twitter ( Table 2 ). Although the total number of unique conversationalists varied across the two groups and platforms ( Table 2 ), an average of 74% and 85% of unique users interacted directly with the individual communicators on their Twitter and Instagram posts, respectively (although IND1 on Twitter was far lower than the other individuals). An average of 30% of unique conversationalists interacted directly with the eNGO communicators on their Twitter posts, and an average of 23% did so on Instagram posts ( Table 2 ).

Although direct message data were not collected (this information is not public in either Twitter or Instagram), all of the communicators indicated during the interviews that direct message engagement does not occur more frequently than comment engagement. Furthermore, although the eNGO communicators engage a majority non-scientific audience (0–22% of conversationalists across Instagram and Twitter were identified as scientific users), the individual scientists reach a mixed audience consisting of both scientific and non-scientific users–particularly on Instagram–with 42–67% of conversationalists identified as scientific users on Instagram, and 44–100% identified as scientific users on Twitter ( Table 2 ). While mixed, scientists constitute a large proportion of the audience of the individual communicators.

The survey of conversationalists yielded a response rate of 10% (45 out of 425 invited to complete the survey). Most of the survey respondents were engaged on posts of the individual scientists (five on Twitter and 33 on Instagram), and seven were engaged on posts of the eNGO communicators (all from Instagram). The majority (62%) of respondents who identified their age were between 19–33 years old, with a smaller proportion (16%) aged 5–18 and 34–49 combined ( Table 3 ). Only two of the survey participants were 50 or above. Most of the survey respondents who revealed their gender identified as female (82%) ( Table 3 ). The respondents were also highly educated and science-associated overall: 83% of respondents had some level of post-secondary education, and 80% consider themselves part of the scientific community ( Table 3 ). Although the majority of survey participants were well educated and science-associated, many users who participated in conversations on the posts of the science communicators were not scientists, especially those engaged with eNGO posts ( Table 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t003

Some survey participants provided open text responses that explained why they engage in conversations on posts of the communicators, frequently expressing personal sentiments (emotional connections to the communicator and/or their posts) in their responses, rather than focusing on education or links to science. Those who prefer to engage in conversations on Twitter do so due to its short message length and focus on news/relevant information ( Table 4 ). The participants who expressed a preference for Instagram drew attention to its visual nature, its communication features, and its ease of use/functionality ( Table 4 ). Regardless of platform preference, the most cited reasons for using Twitter related to the participants’ work and their seeking news/information. In contrast, the participants use Instagram because of the platform’s visual nature, and for personal reasons such as self-expression, relationship-building, and connecting with friends/family ( Table 5 ). Personal sentiments also emerged when the respondents wrote about their motivation for following particular accounts. Although they follow the communicators to receive new information, many also do so because they find the communicators (or the content) to be relatable ( Table 5 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.t005

A theme that emerged from all survey responses was the participants’ sense of personal connection with the communicators, which encouraged participation in conversations, particularly on Instagram, which the participants viewed as a more personal social media platform compared to Twitter. For example, one participant stated: “it seems personal and engaging (photos and captions) but without the threat of things getting out of hand or out of context like on Twitter.” The survey respondents also noted that Instagram is quite conducive to communication, illustrated by the participant who stated: “I’m most active on Instagram and it’s easy to make and respond to comments, posts, and stories.” When the respondents commented about their decisions to engage with the communicators, many (12 out of 19) did so in terms of personal connections, perceived authenticity of the communicator, and feeling that they knew the owner of the account ( Table 5 ). For example, one wrote, “for me it is easier to contact a person instead of an organization with 'unknown faces' behind it.” Another respondent described a sense of comfort in interacting with organizations that are comprised of known individuals, “I use social media for work so I know there are ‘individuals’ behind the organization… However if I didn’t know the organisation, then I would be less likely to reply.”

When queried about establishing relationships with the communicators, 24 respondents added explanations, and 13—both those that do and do not feel that they have formed relationships with the communicator—commented specifically about two-way conversations. One did not feel an opportunity to form a relationship was presented, because direct interactions had only occurred with other users, not the communicator: “I don't think [the communicator has] ever responded to anything I've said on their post, responded to one of my posts, or anything of the like. It's impossible to feel any link if it's not reciprocal.” In contrast, those who formed relationships emphasized the dialogic interactions: “we have commented back and forth to each other as well as [direct messaged] in the past!” Two others expressed similar comments: “we talk in private as well as I do with my friends”; and: “I often message [them] if I need to know anything about being in academia, because I am new to it and [they are] really helpful.” One respondent also stressed that the way posts are presented on social media is crucial, and can result in a relationship-type connection in the absence of direct interactions with the communicator:

We don’t talk, but their welcoming demeanor and friendliness makes learning science personal. It feels like engaging with a friend. Their method of communication makes science a more fun and accessible conversation. You feel like you are involved, and you can always put forth your input without judgement—something that is super important because science can appear condescending to a lot of people. It’s constant learning and that’s all that matters.

Recognizing that social media provide a means of two-way interactions—which research suggests are crucial for effective communication [ 33 , 34 ]—individual scientists and NGOs are increasingly using social media platforms to communicate with their audiences and promote science literacy [ 46 , 47 , 68 , 75 , 106 ]. However, individual and NGO communicators have had difficulty fostering two-way exchanges with their audiences on social media [ 33 , 106 ]. With evidence that the way in which communicators use social media plays an important role in determining audience engagement [e.g., 31 ], this study investigated how individual and NGO communicators approach sharing scientific information on social media, and the strategies they apply to engage with their audiences (RQ1).

The individual and eNGO communicators in this study implement three strategy “filters” in a hierarchical manner to guide their posting activity. First, both communicator groups follow implicit platform conventions when sharing posts on social media. All of the communicators follow a similar approach to ensure their posts are consistent with audience expectations, for example, focusing on more news-centric content in Twitter posts (TRPs), and more visually interesting content in Instagram posts (IGPs).

Second, both of the communicator groups are intentional in how often they post on the social media platforms, as well as in the types of media they use in posts. This activity “filter” is applied differently between the communicator groups. For example, the eNGOs implement a more scheduled approach, typically posting frequently, at regular intervals, and mainly on Twitter. In contrast, the individual communicators are more flexible in how often they post, and share information mainly via Instagram, particularly Instagram stories (IGSs). However, the activity strategies applied by the communicators do not link directly with conversational engagement on their social media posts. When comparing proportional engagement between the communicators (normalizing engagement to the number of followers for each communicator), ORG2—which posts far more frequently than the other communicators—receives fewer comments than the other communicators, and is in conversations with fewer unique users. IND1 and IND2 post less frequently than the other communicators, but they do not receive lower engagement with regard to user comments or unique conversationalists. A link between media type used (frequency of text, images, videos) and conversational engagement is also not obvious. Furthermore, a connection between the platform given priority in practice (i.e., the platform posted to most frequently) and conversational engagement is not evident, as all of the eNGOs receive more engagement on IGPs than TRPs despite posting more frequently on Twitter than Instagram.

The data in this study show that the implementation of interpersonal social media strategies by the communicators (i.e., the third strategy “filter”) encourages conversational engagement (RQ2). The next section discusses the characteristics of interpersonal strategies that encourage communicators and audiences to participate in two-way conversations (RQ2).

Interpersonal communication strategies and social media engagement

A variety of interpersonal communication strategies have been demonstrated to affect social media engagement [ 62 ], many of which are used by both the individual and eNGO communicators. For example, both the individuals and eNGOs actively invite people to participate in conversations on their posts, which is important because this approach encourages engagement, an opportunity that would otherwise be missed [ 25 , 62 , 107 ]. However, the individual scientists more comprehensively implement interpersonal communication strategies. First, the individuals post selfies and selfie-style videos more frequently than the eNGOs. This difference is noteworthy for engagement, as social media users are more willing to comment on posts by communicators whom they know, and more likely to initiate conversations with communicators who are familiar to them [ 26 , 29 , 69 ]. Furthermore, previous research shows that speaking directly to social media audiences through the camera—as is common practice for the individuals in selfie-style videos—can personally connect communicators with audience members and help to build trust and establish communicator-audience relationships, even in the absence of direct communicator-user interactions [ 27 , 84 , 108 , 109 ]. In addition, research on interpersonal communication has shown that this form of communication entails establishing relationships among the participants [ 105 ]. The results of this study support the link between selfie-style posts, two-way conversations, and communicator-audience relationships, as the individual scientists receive more engagement than eNGOs overall, and successfully formed relationships with their audiences, even in the absence of direct interaction (as corroborated by the survey responses). The frequent use of selfie-style image and video posts appears to be an effective strategy to build trust, establish communicator-audience relationships, and stimulate discussions of science on social media, which science communicators could implement to encourage effective science communication.

The expression of interpersonal sentiments in posts is also important for social media engagement, as recent research suggests that content characteristics affect engagement. For example, when users see social media posts similar in nature to their own, they are better able to connect with the content on a personal level and engage with it [ 28 , 30 ]. Although both communicator groups discussed strategies to make their social media content more relatable, the individual scientists receive more engagement in terms of two-way conversations than eNGOs overall, which may be because the former choose to focus on posting personally-relatable content. When the individual scientists post off-topic content such as day-to-day activities and frequently use first person pronouns in posts, they create relatable, shared stories that are thought to be key for audience engagement [ 26 , 110 ]. In fact, posts with a personal sentiment or message (including those without any science content) can surpass scientific posts in terms of engagement, even on science-focused accounts [ 107 ]. A link between engagement and personal content was evident in the survey responses, which showed users choose to follow communicators with whom they can relate. The results of this study suggest that the use of personal and relatable social media content promotes more two-way interactions in social media with science communicators than would otherwise occur.

Previous studies show that using two-way conversations to form communicator-audience relationships is important for social media engagement. Two-way conversations can result in personal connections between users and organizations, and cultivate positive organization-public relationships, which are crucial because organizations often have difficulty in retaining engaged users on social media [ 62 , 111 – 113 ]. However, the means through which relationships are formed between organizations and users on social media goes beyond direct interactions, as research shows that a significant number of users are influenced by the interactions they see online. When communicators engage with an individual, they are indirectly affecting relationship perceptions for others who observe the interaction, even when no direct communication takes place with the latter [ 114 ]. Additionally, the survey responses demonstrate that communicators are capable of establishing relationships with audience members through the use of personal sentiments even in the absence of direct interactions. Therefore, because the eNGOs currently respond to a smaller proportion of audience comments compared with the individual scientists, the eNGOs engage in fewer two-way conversations and therefore may be more limited in their ability to form communicator-audience relationships than individuals. This outcome is supported by this study: two-way conversations between individual communicators and audience members resulted in the establishment of communicator-audience relationships, whereas the eNGOs communicators were less successful in forming relationships with their audiences. Furthermore, because more conversations can result when communicators form relationships with their audiences (as discussed above), two-way conversations and communicator-audience relationships appear to be mutually reinforcing. Consequently, focusing on responding to audience comments to form communicator-audience relationships is likely an effective strategy to create sustained social media engagement between science communicators and their audiences. One of the individual scientists emphasized that conversations are not limited to individual posts; instead, when communicators establish relationships with their audiences, the relationships allow conversations to extend beyond a discrete instance, and into a larger, ongoing conversation. Therefore, science communicators will benefit by being responsive to social media comments and working to establish communicator-audience relationships in order to facilitate longer-term, ongoing conversations about science [ 115 ].

Non-scientific audience engagement

Both the individuals and the eNGOs stated that they specifically target non-scientific audiences with their social media activity (although the communicators do not limit their audiences to non-scientific users alone). In the interviews, all seven communicators pointed out that they generally use Instagram to reach non-scientific audiences, as they feel the platform attracts a larger population of non-scientific users than Twitter. Studies have shown, however, that the educational distribution of users on Twitter and Instagram is relatively similar [ 116 , 117 ]. The apparent mismatch between the perception of the communicators and subscriber base of the two platforms may be due to the topics of focus by the communicators on social media and the audiences that they have built. To date, scientists have typically been heavier users of Twitter than Instagram, and because the communicators post an abundance of science-based content [ 78 , 79 ], they may attract more scientists via Twitter than Instagram. Furthermore, education level does not necessarily equate to science literacy. In this study, all of the communicators except IND1 appear to engage a larger proportion of scientific users in conversations on Twitter than on Instagram. Moreover, a higher proportion of users in conversations on posts by the eNGOs are non-scientific compared to the individual scientist communicators. This result is likely a consequence of the differences in target audiences, topics, and social media goals among the communicators indicated during interviews. Nonetheless, the individual scientists engage a mixed (scientific and non-scientific) audience on social media, particularly on Instagram. Therefore, as this study shows, focusing on Instagram as a platform to reach non-scientific audiences for science conversations could be an important science communication strategy.

Interpersonal communication afforded through Instagram

Determining the extent to which Instagram fosters social media engagement is another informative outcome in this study. Not only did a greater number of two-way conversations take place on Instagram than Twitter for nearly all of the communicators (including the eNGOs that do not prioritize the platform in practice), Instagram was favoured by the communicators and survey participants for conversation-related uses overall, particularly illustrated by their understanding of accepted social media practices. The visual, informal, multi-functional, cordial, and multimedia-focused nature of Instagram (both posts and stories) contributes to it being a more conversational platform than Twitter. Science communicators could capitalize on this functionality of Instagram to encourage more conversations and informative two-way science communication with diverse audiences.

Implications

This study is especially informative for understanding characteristics of science communication on social media, and could contribute to dialogic theory on science communication more broadly, as the results highlight factors that play an important role in fostering two-way exchanges [ 62 , 106 , 118 ]. The use of more formal methods typical of traditional science communication practices, i.e., through transfer of publications (data and information in various forms, e.g., peer-reviewed research papers) [ 119 – 122 ], often results in a transmission pathway, where conversations are limited between communicators and their audiences ( Fig 8 ). In contrast, the implementation of interpersonal strategies by science communicators promotes the formation of communicator-audience relationships and encourages audiences to participate in more two-way conversations, resulting in positive feedback effect ( Fig 8 ). Crucially, because the interpersonal communication practices observed in this study mainly relate to how content is shared rather than what information is shared or who it is shared with, such strategies are applicable to a wide diversity of subjects and audiences. Therefore, science communicators of all types (individual scientists, organizations, government agencies, etc.) can communicate interpersonally with citizens about a variety of scientific topics for which research information is relevant to make policy decisions, promoting citizens to be more scientifically engaged in environmental, health, and other issues.

Formal strategies are not sufficient to establish a relationship between audience and communicator, resulting solely in a transmission pathway. Interpersonal strategies act as enablers to information flow, resulting in communicator-audience relationships, which promote two-way conversations sustained over time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.g008

For organizations such as eNGOs that are communicating with large non-scientific audiences, the potential to engage citizens in the science of environmental issues through interpersonal strategies is high. Importantly, because organizations do not operate in the same manner as individual scientists, they may be more limited in their ability to adopt interpersonal communications (for example, organizations are staffed by multiple individuals, and/or may be hesitant to share off-topic content or use first person pronouns due to organization culture) [ 123 , 124 ]. Furthermore, organizations face particular challenges and risks when using social media, such as losing control of the narrative of messages or being portrayed as less authoritative, which are not eliminated with the implementation of interpersonal strategies. In such cases, organizations could develop specific guidelines for implementing interpersonal communication into their social media activities in a manner consistent with higher-level organization practices. Nonetheless, because the eNGOs in this study share many goals with the individual scientists (such as encouraging two-way science conversations), eNGOs could apply interpersonal communication strategies—through a “spokesperson,” for example—and promote improved scientific literacy in their audiences on environmental issues that the organizations are engaged with.

Although this research investigated science communication on social media, the interpersonal strategies observed to promote conversations with citizens are applicable to all science communicators in diverse environments. Science communicators working to engage their audiences with environmental research information can apply interpersonal techniques offline as well as online. For example, communicators could utilize interpersonal communication strategies to establish relationships with relevant stakeholder groups involved in participatory policy processes and gain a better understanding of stakeholder concerns, ultimately leading to greater cooperation and more effective management decisions that are inclusive of stakeholder values [ 115 ].

Limitations and future work

The sample size of communicator participants was selected to examine the research question in a detailed and qualitatively data-rich manner rather than be representative of all scientists and eNGOs communicating on social media; nonetheless, increasing the number of communicator participants could reveal whether the conclusions of this study hold across a broader group of communicators and their audiences. Additionally, a longer period of study than was the source of data in this research, would provide further insights into communication patterns, such as how social media behaviours may be changing over time, regarding platform functionality and the way in which users employ social media tools (for example, a new feature called Instagram TV was instituted while this research was in progress). The ways in which social media research is conducted may also be required to change over time as the relationship between researchers and platform providers evolves and data access shifts [ 125 , 126 ]. The study was focused on Twitter and Instagram; future work could include other popular social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to advance understanding of the effects of interpersonal communication on engagement across more platforms. The communicator participants in this study share slightly different information on social media (i.e., the individual scientists focused mainly on a range of science topics, whereas the eNGOs included more politics and advocacy, with science aspects), which could affect audience engagement. Further research could compare individual scientists and eNGOs focusing on a single science topic to identify any effect of content topic on audience engagement.

The demographic concentration of the survey participants tended toward younger, highly educated respondents. Future work could use sampling techniques to evaluate whether links exist between demographic characteristics and the choice to participate in social media conversations, as well as survey a larger number of audience members to draw broader representative conclusions. Furthermore, conversation quality and message framing were not measured to determine the extent to which social media conversations were scientifically meaningful and learning-oriented, or how messages were framed. Additional investigation into social media as tools to facilitate a participatory model of communication could advance understanding of conversation quality. Evidence from the survey in this study suggests that communicators are positively influencing audience behaviour. For example, 44% of the survey participants (n = 41) feel inspired by communicator posts to make behaviour changes in regard to the natural environment. Therefore, future research that focused on conversation quality could provide additional insight into the effectiveness of science communication to influence behavior. Determining deeper understanding of the extent to which communicators are reaching non-scientific audiences, and how communicator-audience networks are structured and operate, could be obtained through studies that investigate how to measure the level of effectiveness of conversations in communicator/audience interactions, the role of communicator/audience networks, and the presence of lurkers in such networks.

Conclusions

A social media presence by itself is not sufficient for successful communication; how social media tools are used to encourage two-way conversations is an important determinant of engagement [ 25 , 118 ]. Both the individual and eNGO communicator groups in this study share similar communication goals and conveyed strong awareness of strategies known to be effective for science communication (such as two-way conversations). The two communicator groups apply interpersonal communication strategies differently in their social media activity. One difference that emerged is their overall application of interpersonal communication strategies. The individual scientists particularly focus on making themselves known and relatable communicators throughout their social media activity, and on establishing relationships with their audiences. In practice, the individuals achieve this outcome by posting more selfies (images and videos), posting more off-topic content, responding to more comments, and using more personal pronoun-prominent language than the eNGOs achieved. The individual scientists also prioritize Instagram over Twitter (and particularly Instagram stories), which more readily supports the implementation of interpersonal communication strategies than Twitter. This emphasis by the individual scientists on interpersonal communication promotes the formation of communicator-audience relationships, encouraging more two-way conversations and generating greater numbers of opportunities to form relationships with their audiences than the eNGOs. In other words, the results of this study show that a combination of interpersonal communication strategies, and their application throughout the social media activity of science communicators via the features of the social media platforms, especially in Instagram, play an important role in determining audience participation in two-way conversations, and ultimately affect how audience members engage with communicators over time.

Supporting information

S1 table. codes and definitions used to characterize twitter post, instagram post, and instagram story content..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972.s001

Acknowledgments

The individual scientists, eNGOs, and survey participants who participated in this study are acknowledged with thanks. Peter Wells, International Ocean Institute Canada, and Suzuette Soomai, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, provided helpful insights. This paper benefitted from the detailed assessment by the PLOS ONE anonymous reviewers.

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. FAO; 2020. Available from https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
2. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondizio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, et al., editors. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn; 2019.
3. Cubasch U, Wuebbles D, Chen D, Facchini MC, Frame D, Mahowald N, et al. Introduction. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
4. MacDonald BH, Soomai SS, De Santo EM, Wells PG. Understanding the science-policy interface in integrated coastal and ocean management. In MacDonald BH, Soomai SS, De Santo EM, Wells PG, editors. Science, information, and policy interface for effective coastal and ocean management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016. p. 19–43.
View Article
Google Scholar
7. Hallman WK. What the public thinks and knows about science—and why it matters. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 61–72.
9. Boykoff MT. Creative (climate) communications: Productive pathways for science, policy, and society. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6 pmid:31733928
10. Serrão-Neumann SM, Coudrain A, Coulter L, editors. Communicating climate change information for decision-making. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.01.070 pmid:29544822
13. National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2012. National Science Foundation; 2012. Available from https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20170706211612 / https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
14. Purcell K, Brenner J, Rainie L. Search engine use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2012 March 9. Available from https://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/09/search-engine-use-2012/
15. We Are Social. Digital in 2018. Available from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019 . 2019.
16. Internet Live Stats. Live. Available from http://www.internetlivestats.com [date unknown].
17. Pierce J. Digital divide. In Hobbs R, Mihailidis P. editors. The international encyclopedia of media literacy. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2019; 8 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238
18. Reisdorf BC, Blank G, Dutton WH. Internet cultures and digital inequalities. In Graham M, Dutton WH, editors. Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 80–95.
PubMed/NCBI
23. National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes, knowledge, and interest. National Science Foundation; 2020. Available from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/interest-information-sources-and-involvement
24. Balan C. Does brand posting behaviour influence follower engagement on Instagram? Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. 2017; 11(1):687–697. https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0073
37. Kahan D, Scheufele DA, Jamieson KH. Introduction: why science communication. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1–11.
45. Davies SH, Horst M. Science communication: Culture, identity, and citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.
50. Akin H, Scheufele DA. Overview of the science of science communication. In Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 25–33.
52. Irwin A. Risk, science and public communication: Third order thinking about scientific culture. In Bucchi M, Brian T, editors. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge; 2008. p. 199–212.
57. Trench B. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J, Schiele B, Shi S, editors. Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media BV; 2008. p. 119–135.
61. Bughin J, Chui M. The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday. [1 December 2010]. Available from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/the-rise-of-the-networked-enterprise-web-20-finds-its-payday#
64. Nonprofit Tech for Good. 2018 Global NGO technology report. 2018. Available from http://techreport.ngo
81. Boyd I. Be very cautious indeed, Research Fortnight; 2018; 532:20–21.
94. Leedy PD, Ormrod JE. Practical research: Planning and design. 12th ed. New York: Pearson; 2019.
95. UNESCO-IOC. Summary report of the first global planning meeting: UN Decade of ocean science for sustainable development.13-15 May 2019. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (No. 4). Paris: UNESCO-IOC; 2019. 17 p. Available from https://oceandecade.org/assets/uploads/documents/GPM_SummaryReport_V9FINAL_1563800523.pdf
97. Gonçalves P, Araújo M, Benevenuto F, Cha M. Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Online Social Networks. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2013. p. 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/2512938.2512951
101. Berger CR, Roloff ME. Interpersonal communication. In Stacks DW, Salwen MB, Eichhorn KC, editors. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2019. p. 277–291. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-24
102. Burleson BR. The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In Berger CR, Roloff ME, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, editors. The handbook of communication science. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010. p. 145–163.
103. Shue CK, Stamp GH. Measurement in interpersonal communication. In Graham EE, Mazer JP, editors. Communication research measures III. A sourcebook. New York: Routledge; 2020. Chapter 1.
104. Solomon D, Theiss J. Interpersonal communication: Putting theory into practice. New York: Routledge; 2013.
105. Braithwaite DO, Schrodt P, Carr K. Introduction. Meta-theory and theory in interpersonal communication research. In Braithwaite DO, Schrodt P, editors. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015. p. 1–20.
112. Cox R, Pezzullo PC. Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2016.
121. Hjørland B, Fjordback Søndergaard T, Andersen J. UNISIST model and knowledge domains. In Encyclopedia of library and information science. Boco Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2005. p. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS-120024989

Browse All Articles
Newsletter Sign-Up

InterpersonalCommunication →

No results found in working knowledge.

Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
Try removing some search filters.
Use different search filters.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 06 May 2021

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Hannah B. Love ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0011-1328 1 ,
Jennifer E. Cross ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5582-4192 2 ,
Bailey Fosdick ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3736-2219 2 ,
Kevin R. Crooks 2 ,
Susan VandeWoude 2 &
Ellen R. Fisher 3

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8 , Article number: 106 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9540 Accesses

13 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Complex networks
Science, technology and society

Scientists are increasingly charged with solving complex societal, health, and environmental problems. These systemic problems require teams of expert scientists to tackle research questions through collaboration, coordination, creation of shared terminology, and complex social and intellectual processes. Despite the essential need for such interdisciplinary interactions, little research has examined the impact of scientific team support measures like training, facilitation, team building, and expertise. The literature is clear that solving complex problems requires more than contributory expertise, expertise required to contribute to a field or discipline. It also requires interactional expertise, socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group. These forms of expertise are often tacit and therefore difficult to access, and studies about how they are intertwined are nearly non-existent. Most of the published work in this area utilises archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment. This study addresses the call of numerous studies to use mixed-methods and social network analysis to investigate scientific team formation and success. This longitudinal case-based study evaluates the following question: How are scientific productivity, advice, and mentoring networks intertwined on a successful interdisciplinary scientific team? This study used applied social network surveys, participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and historical social network data to assess this specific team and assessed processes and practices to train new scientists over a 15-year period. Four major implications arose from our analysis: (1) interactional expertise and contributory expertise are intertwined in the process of scientific discovery; (2) team size and interdisciplinary knowledge effectively and efficiently train early career scientists; (3) integration of teaching/training, research/discovery, and extension/engagement enhances outcomes; and, (4) interdisciplinary scientific progress benefits significantly when interpersonal relationships among scientists from diverse disciplines are formed. This case-based study increases understanding of the development and processes of an exemplary team and provides valuable insights about interactions that enhance scientific expertise to train interdisciplinary scientists.

Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics

research about interpersonal communication

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Interviews in the social sciences

Introduction.

Scientists are increasingly charged with solving complex and large-scale societal, health, and environmental challenges (Read et al., 2016 ; Stokols et al., 2008 ). These systemic problems require interdisciplinary teams to tackle research questions through collaboration, coordination, creation of shared terminology, and complex social and intellectual processes (Barge and Shockley-Zalabak, 2008 ; De Montjoye et al., 2014 ; Fiore, 2008 ). Thus, to successfully approach complex research questions, scientific teams must synthesise knowledge from different disciplines, create a shared terminology, and engage members of a diverse research community (Matthews et al., 2019 ; Read et al., 2016 ). Despite significant time, energy, and money spent on collaboration and interdisciplinary projects, little research has examined the impact of scientific team support measures like training, facilitation, team building, and team performance metrics (Falk-Krzesinski et al., 2011 ; Klein et al., 2009 ).

Studies examining the development of scientific teaming skills that result in successful outcomes are sparse (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). The earliest studies of collaboration in science used bibliometric data to search for predictors of team success such as team diversity, size, geographical proximity, inter-university collaboration, and repeat collaborations (Borner et al., 2010 ; Cummings and Kiesler, 2008 ; Wuchty et al., 2007 ). Building from these studies, current research focuses on team processes. Literature suggests that to successfully frame a scientific problem, a team must also engage emotionally and interact effectively (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ) and that scientific collaboration involve consideration of the process, collaborator, human capital, and other factors that define an scientific collaboration (Bozeman et al., 2013 ; Hall et al., 2019 ; Lee and Bozeman, 2005 ). Similarly, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) used social network analysis to examine how emotional intelligence is transmitted to team outcomes through team processes. Still more research is needed, and Hall et al. ( 2018 ) called for team science studies that use longitudinal designs and mixed-methods to examine project teams as they develop in order to move beyond bibliometric measures of success and to explore the complex, interacting features in real-world teams.

Fiore ( 2008 ) explained that much of what we know about the science of team science (SciTS), training scientists and team learning in productive team interactions, is anecdotal and not the result of systematic investigation (Fiore, 2008 ). Over a decade later there is still a paucity of research on how scientific teams develop the type of expertise they need to create new knowledge and further scientific discovery (Bammer et al., 2020 ). Bammer et al. ( 2020 ) has identified and defined two types of expertise: (1) contributory expertise, expertise required to make a contribution to a field or discipline (Collins and Evans, 2007 ); and (2) interactional expertise, socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group (Bammer et al., 2020 ). These forms of expertise are often tacit, codified by “learning-by-doing,” and augmented from project to project; therefore, they are difficult to measure and rarely documented in literature (Bammer et al., 2020 ).

Wooten et al. ( 2014 ) outlined three types of evaluations—developmental, process, and outcome—needed to understand how teams develop and to provide information about their future success (Wooten et al., 2014 ). A developmental evaluation focuses on the continuous process of team development, and a process evaluation focuses on team interactions, meetings, and engagement (Patton, 2011 ). Both development and process evaluations have the common goal of understanding the team’s future success or failures, also known as the team’s outcomes (e.g., grants, publications, and awards) (Patton, 2011 ). The majority of published work on outcome metrics is evaluated by archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment (Hall et al., 2018 ). Albeit informative, these studies are based upon limited outcome metrics such as publications and represent only a selective sampling of teams that have achieved success. To collect these three types of evaluation data, it is recommended to engage mixed-methods research such as a combination of social network analysis (SNA), participant observation, surveys, and interviews, although these approaches have not been widely employed (Bennett, 2011 ; Borner et al., 2010 ; Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ).

A few key studies have provided insight into successful collaboration strategies. Duhigg ( 2016 ) found that successful teams provided psychological safety, had dependable team members, and relied upon clear roles and structures. In addition, successful teams had meaningful goals, and team members felt like they could make an impact through their work on the team (Duhigg, 2016 ). Similarly, Collins ( 2001 ) explained that in business teams, moving from “Good to Great” required more than selecting the right people; the team needed development and training to achieve their goals (Collins, 2001 ). Woolley et al. ( 2010 ) found that it is not collective intelligence that builds the most effective teams, but rather, how teams interact that predicts their success (Woolley et al., 2010 ). The three traits they identified as most associated with team success included even turn-taking, social sensitivity, and proportion female (when women’s representation nears parity with men) (Woolley et al., 2010 ). Finally, Bammer et al. ( 2020 ) recommended creating a knowledge bank to strengthen knowledge about contributary and interactional expertise in scientific literature to solve complex problems. Collectively, these studies argue that the key to collective intelligence is highly reliant on interpersonal relationships to drive team success.

This article reports on a longitudinal case-based study of an exemplary interdisciplinary scientific team that has been successful in typical scientific outputs, including competing for research awards, publishing academic articles, and training and developing scientists. This analysis examines how scientific productivity, advice, and mentoring networks intertwined to promote team success. The study highlights how the team’s processes to train scientists (e.g., developing mentoring and advice networks) have propelled their scientific productivity, fulfilled the University’s land grant mission (i.e., emphasises research/discovery; education/training; and outreach/engagement) and created contributory and interactional expertise on the team. Team dynamics were evaluated by social network surveys, participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and historical social network data over 15 years to develop theory and evaluate complex relationships contributing to team success (Dozier et al., 2014 ; Greenwood, 1993 ).

Case study selection

The [BLIND] Science of team science (SciTS) team consisted of scientists trained in four different disciplines and research administrators. The SciTS team monitored twenty-five interdisciplinary teams at [BLIND] for 5 years from initiation of team formation to identify team dynamics that related to team success. This case is thus presented as part of an ongoing study of the 25 teams, supported by efforts through the [BLINDED] to encourage and enhance collaborative, interdisciplinary research and scholarship. Team outcomes were recorded annually and included extramural awards, publications, presentations, students trained, and training outcomes. An exemplary case-based study is appropriate when the case is unusual, the issues are theoretically important, and there are practical implications (Yin, 2017 ). Further, cases can illustrate examples of expertise and provide guidance to future teams (Bammer et al., 2020 ). An “exemplary team designation” was given to this team by the SciTS evaluators. Metrics used to designate an exemplary team included: team outcomes; highly interdisciplinary research; longevity of the team; fulfilment of all aspects of the land grant mission (research/discovery; education/training; and outreach/engagement); integration of team members; and use of external reviewers.

Social network survey

The exemplary team included Principle Investigators (PIs), postdoctoral researchers (postdocs), graduate students, undergraduate students, and active collaborators external to the University. The entire team was surveyed annually 2015–2019 about the extent and type of collaboration with other team members. In 2015, the team was asked about prior collaborations, and in subsequent years they were asked about additional interactions since joining the team. Possible collaborative activities included research publications, scientific presentations, grant proposals, and serving on student committees. Team members were also asked the types of relationships they had with each team member, including learning, leadership, mentoring, advice, friendship, and having fun (Supplementary 2 ). Data were collected using a voluntary online survey tool (Organisational Network Analysis Surveys). All subjects were identified by name on the social network survey but are not identified in any network diagrams or analyses. SNA software programmes R Studio (R Studio Team, 2020 ) and UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2014 ) were used to analyse data and Visone (Brandes and Wagner, 2011 ) was used to create visualisations. The response rate for the survey was 94% in 2015, 83% in 2016, 95% in 2017, and 81% in 2018. All data collection methods were performed with the informed consent of the participants and followed Institutional Review Board protocol #19-8622H.

Data from the social network survey were combined to create three different network measures: scientific productivity, mentoring, and advice. The scientific productivity network was a combination of four survey measures: research/consulting, grants, publications, and serving on student committees. Scientific productivity represents a form of cognitive or contributory expertise: expertise required to contribute to a field or discipline (Bammer et al., 2020 ; Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ). The mentoring and advice networks were created from social network survey questions: “who is your mentor?” and “who do you go to for advice?”, respectively. Mentor and advice are tacit forms of interactional expertise: socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group (Collins and Evans, 2007 ). Other studies have also found a connection between social characteristics of interdisciplinary work and other factors like productivity, career paths, and a group’s ability to exchange information, interact, and explore together (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ).

Social network data were summarised using average degree, sometimes split into indegree and outdegree. Outdegree is a measure of how many team members a given individual reported getting advice, or mentorship, from. Similarly, the indegree of an individual is a measure of how many other team members reported receiving advice, or mentorship, from that person. Average degree is the average number of immediate connections (i.e., indegree plus outdegree) for a person in a network (Giuffre, 2013 ; R. Hanneman and Riddle, 2005 a, 2005 b). To further explore the mentoring and advice networks, we calculated the average degree/outdegree/indegree of postdocs, graduate students, and faculty separately to directly compare demographic groups.

The advice, mentoring, and scientific productivity networks were directly compared using the Pearson correlation between the corresponding network adjacency matrices. We predicted a positive correlation between the advice, mentoring, and scientific productivity matrices. Statistical significance ( p < 0.05) of correlations was assessed with the network permutation-based method Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) (R. A. Hanneman and Riddle, 2005 a, 2005 b).

Historical social network data

A historical network survey was created to determine how the connections in the network formed, developed, and changed from project-to-project. The historical social network was constructed from three forms of data: interviews with the PIs, a historical narrative written by the PIs describing the team formation process, and team rosters that listed the 81 team members since the inception of the team.

Retrospective team survey

A retrospective team survey was administered at the end of the study to determine what skills team members developed and codified through participating on the team, how membership on the team supported members personally and professionally, and their favourite aspects of the team. The survey was sent to 22 members from the 2018 team roster using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, 2005 ) with an 86% response rate.

Two semi-structured, one-hour interviews were conducted with two PIs in 2018 to learn about the history of the team. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.

Participant observations

Participant observation was conducted from 2015–2019 at four annual three-day, off-campus retreats and 1–2 additional meetings each year. Students, PIs, external collaborators, and families were all invited to attend the retreats and meetings. Field notes about team interactions were recorded immediately after each interaction. The analytic field notes captured how team members interacted across disciplines, tackled scientific problems, and engaged with others at different career stages. Analysis occurred as field notes were written, during observations, and again during data analysis.

An exemplary team

The SciTS Team identified one team from the larger study and designated it as exemplary based on six (tacit and non-tacit) elements. First, the team had outstanding team outcomes. From 2004–2018, notable accomplishments include 33 extramural awards totalling over $5.6 million, including two large federal awards totalling over $4.5 million; 58 peer-reviewed publications with 39 different universities, 13 state agencies, and 11 other organisations; 141 presentations, 21 graduate students and 15 postdocs trained; and receipt of an [BLIND]institution-wide Interdisciplinary Scholarship Team Award. Participants received many individual honours, including one of the PIs being named to the National Academy of Sciences.

Second, this interdisciplinary team combined scientific expertise from many different backgrounds, including ecologists, wildlife biologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, veterinarians, and numerous collaborators. Principal Investigators were housed in five main universities: Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, University of Minnesota, University of California-Davis, and University of Tasmania. They also engaged collaborators from national and international universities, federal, state, and local governmental agencies, veterinary centres, and animal shelters. Collectively, team members represented 39 different universities, 11 federal agencies, 13 state agencies, and 11 other organisations listed on their peer-reviewed publications. The team has published globally with co-authors from every continent but Antarctica.

The third element identified was the team’s 15-year history and how they evolved project-to-project (Supplementary Video S1 ). In 2003, a graduate student proposed a collaborative research project between two faculty members who became two of the founding team PIs (Fig. 1 ). The team was formed in 2004 with four members—two faculty PIs, a postdoc, and a Ph.D. student (Fig. 1 ). Initial grant proposals submitted in 2005 and 2006 were not funded; however, in 2007, the team received a large federal research award from the US National Science Foundation (NSF). The team roster increased from four to nine, and a second large expansion occurred after receipt of another NSF award in 2012. By 2014, membership increased to 31 people, and at the end of analysis in 2018, the roster comprised 43 members. Over the course of observation, 81 different individuals, including students, faculty, and collaborators, had participated in research activities supported by the team.

Significant events occurring over 15 years during the development and formation of an exemplary team.

The fourth reason this team was deemed exemplary was because it intertwined the components in the Land Grand mission, including research/discovery, teaching/training, and extension/engagement (Fig. 2 ). The team included undergraduates conducting research and presenting at conferences, graduate students working in multiple labs, and postdocs mentoring all the researchers in the lab. An external advisor said at the end of a retreat, “It’s really cool that students are part of the conversations that are both good/bad/ugly etc. It is not just good. It is not just one-on-one conversations. They hear it all.” A Ph.D. student wrote in the Retrospective Survey about the skills he developed: “I have developed the ability to talk about my research to people outside my field. I have also worked on broadening my understanding of disease ecology as a whole. I have been given the opportunity [to] begin placing my work in the larger framework of ecosystem health.” Faculty also wrote about what they learned, “[I] Learned from leadership of team (especially [blinded], and other PIs) how to develop and conduct research team work well - am using what I am learning to develop new research teams…. how to develop and nurture and respect interpersonal relationships and diversity of opinions. This has been an amazing experience, to be part of a well-functioning team, and to examine why and how that is maintained”

The team grew from 4 members in 2004 to 42 members in 2018. Much of the growth occurred by the addition of students and external collaborators.

Fifth, the team was effective at onboarding and integrating new members. To do so, they used two key strategies (Fig. 3 ). First, 15 of the students held co-advised graduate research positions. This shared model of mentorship provided students with opportunities to work in multiple labs, collaborate with additional team members, and gain a broader academic experience. A Ph.D. student wrote in the Retrospective Survey about the skills she learned from being a member of the team: “Leadership skills, communicating science to those in other fields, scientific writing skills, technical laboratory skills, interpersonal communication skills, data sharing experience, and many others.” The shared model supported the team’s interdisciplinary mission by providing opportunities to train future scientists to communicate, network, and conduct research across disciplines. Second, as team members developed through participation on the team, they assumed more mature scientific roles. Fourteen members of the team changed positions within the team. Many of these transitions were from undergraduate student to Ph.D. student or Ph.D. student to postdoctoral researcher. In 2012, one postdoc became a PI on the grant.

Social network diagrams of team growth and development from 2004–2018. This network reports onboarding and integration of all members, including their primary position when they joined the team. The nodes are sized by average degree (see text). Colours denote different roles on the team.

Finally, the 2018 team retreat included external reviewers. At the end of 2018 team retreat, they were asked if they had any feedback for the team. An external reviewer said: “You can check all of the boxes of a good team.”; “This is a dream team.”; “I am really impressed.”. Another external reviewer said:

The ambitiousness to execute the scope of the project, to have this many PIs, to be able to communicate; the opportunities for new insights; and the opportunities it presents for trainees are rare. There are a lot of people exposed in this. This is a unique experience for someone in training. And it extends to elementary school. I don’t think there are many projects that have this type of scope. I was impressed with just the idea that scientists are taking this across such a great scope and taking on such great questions.

Scientific productivity network

Prior to 2016, the average degree of the scientific productivity network was 8.8 (Fig. 4 ). In 2016, four faculty nodes were in the core of the network, and the periphery nodes included graduate students, postdocs, and external collaborators (Fig. 5 ). The average degree dropped slightly to 6.2 when the team integrated new members and re-formed around new roles and responsibilities on a new grant (Fig. 4 ). In 2017, the average degree peaked at 9.7 (Fig. 4 ) and faculty were still core, but graduate students and postdocs were more central than before (Fig. 5 ). During this time, productivity was at its highest as team members were working together to meet the objectives of a 5-year interdisciplinary NSF award. The network evolved further in 2018; two of the postdoc nodes overlapped with the faculty nodes in the core of the network (Fig. 5 ).

Average degree of social networks diagrams (mentoring, advice, scientific productivity) indicated strong social ties among team members.

Social network measures of productivity (research/consulting, grants, publications, and serving on student committees) were recorded over time. Each node represents a person on the team, and nodes are sized by average degree (see text). Colours denote different roles on the team. The node label indicates the number of years a person has been part of the team.

Mentoring is integral in the collaborative network

Team members reported between an average of 2.4–3.1 mentors (average outdegree) each year on the team (Fig. 6 ). More specifically, graduate students reported 6.0–7.7 mentors, whereas postdocs reported 2.4–3.5 mentors (Table 1 ). Faculty team members reported having an average of 2.2 to 4.3 mentors on the team (Table 1 ), with the highest average outdegree in 2018.

This diagram was created by using participant answers to the social network question, “who is your mentor?” Each circle or node represents a person on the team. The nodes are sized by outdegree to show who reported receiving mentorship. Node size indicates how many mentors an individual reported, and arrows indicate nodes that served as mentors. Colours denote different roles on the team.

The highest indegree for an individual was the lead PI, with an indegree ranging from 13 to 14 each year (i.e., each year, 13–14 team members reported this individual provided mentorship). In response to an interview question about this PIs favourite part of the team, this individual said, “…and of course, I really like the mentorship of the students…They are initially naive, and some people are initially underconfident, but eventually they become fluent in their subject area.” Many students wrote about the mentoring they received from the team. An undergraduate student wrote:

I have improved my communication skills after needing to collaborate with several mentors across different time zones. I’ve also improved willingness to ask questions when I don’t understand a concept. I’ve also learned what concepts I find basic in my field that others outside my discipline are less familiar with.

Faculty also wrote about the mentoring they received, such as, “I continually learn from members in the team and mentorship by the more experienced members has supported my own career progression.”

Advice is integral in the collaborative network

In the 2015–2017 advice network diagrams, the faculty were tightly clustered (Fig. 7 ). In 2018, the cluster separated as postdocs and graduate students joined the centre of the network. On average, team members reported 5.1 to 6.4 people they could go to for advice (Fig. 4 ).

This diagram was created by using participant answers to the social network question, “who do you go to for advice?” Each circle or node represents a person on the team. The nodes are sized by outdegree to show who reported receiving mentorship. Node size indicates how many mentors an individual reported, and arrows indicate nodes that served as mentors. Colours denote different roles on the team.

In a survey, faculty responded to the question, “How has the team supported you personally and professionally?” One faculty member wrote: “Just today I asked three members of the team for professional advice! And got a thoughtful and prompt response from all.” Another team member wrote: “Being a member of the…team has allowed me to develop skills in statistical analysis, scientific writing, and critical thinking. This team has opened my eyes to what is possible to achieve with science and has provided me with opportunities to network and expand my horizons both within the field of study and outside of it.” These quotes further suggest that the mentoring and advice from a large interdisciplinary team were important to train future scientists.

Interpersonal relationships as driver for scientific productivity

The mentoring and advice networks supported and built on the scientific productivity network and vice versa. The correlation between the collaboration, mentoring, and advice networks would not be possible if the networks were not intertwined. In the retrospective survey, a faculty member described how tacit interpersonal relationships were correlated with their scientific productivity:

Being a part of this grant has helped me both personally and professionally by teaching me new skills (disease ecology, team dynamics), developing friendships/mentors from the team, and strengthening my CV and dossier for promotion to early full professorship.

A Ph.D. student also described how the relationships on the large team propelled their research.

Membership on this team has provided me with a lot of mentorship that I would not otherwise receive were I not working on a large multi-disciplinary for my doctoral research. It has also allowed me to network more effectively.

Between 2015 and 2018, the mentor and advice networks were significantly correlated with the scientific productivity network, demonstrating that personal relationships are associated with scientific collaboration (Table 2 ).

To date, the literature examining successful interdisciplinary scientific team skills that result in successful outcomes is sparse (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). The majority of published work in this area is evaluated by archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment (Hall et al., 2018 ). This study answers the call of numerous researchers to use mixed-methods and SNA to investigate scientific teams (Bennett, 2011 ; Borner et al., 2010 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Woolley et al., 2010 ; Wooten et al., 2015 ). Our case-based study also increases understanding of the development and processes of an exemplary team by providing valuable insights about how the interactions that enhance scientific productivity are synergistic with the interactions that train future scientists. There are four major implications of our findings: (1) interactional and contributory expertise are intertwined; (2) team size, tacit knowledge gained from previous project, and interdisciplinary knowledge were used to effectively and efficiently train scientists; (3) the team increased scientific productivity through interpersonal relationships; and (4) the team fulfilled the land grant mission of the University by integrating teaching/training, research/discovery, and extension/engagement into the team’s activities.

Interactive and contributory expertise are intertwined

Previous literature on scientific teams has found that great teams are not built on scientific expertise alone, but on the processes and interactions that build psychological safety, create a shared language, engage members emotionally, and promote effective interactions (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Hall et al., 2019 ; Senge, 1991 ; Woolley et al., 2010 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). The team highlighted in this report created a shared language and vision through the mentoring and advice networks that helped fuel the team’s scientific productivity (Hall et al., 2012 ). To solve complex problems requires more than contributory expertise, it also requires interactional expertise (Bammer et al., 2020 ). These forms of expertise are often tacit and internalised through the process of becoming an expert in a field of study (Collins and Evans, 2007 ). Learning-by-doing is augmented from project-to-project, with expertise codified over time (Bammer et al., 2020 ). Further, cognitive, emotional, and interactions are key components of successful collaborations (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Bozeman et al., 2013 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). Using social network analysis, our case-based analysis found that the mentoring and advice ties were intertwined with the scientific productivity network.

Training scientists to be experts

The Retrospective Survey asked what personal and professional skills respondents learned from being a member of a team. We hypothesised that many respondents would report tangible skills. Surprisingly, 82% of the open-ended responses were about tacit skills. Students frequently had co-advised graduate research positions, worked in multiple labs, and communicated regularly with practitioners. Moreover, the team translated research to different disciplines within the team, mentored others, and managed interpersonal conflicts. These interactions built expertise because training was not limited to research in a single lab or only in an academic setting. Simple, discrete, and codified knowledge is relatively easy to transfer; however, teams need stronger relationships to gain complex and tacit knowledge, (Attewell, 1992 ; Simonin, 1999 ). On this team, interactions and the ability to practice communication were especially influential for students, junior scientists, and new members. These individuals provided survey responses reporting they learned a wide variety of skills ranging from leadership, scientific and interpersonal communication, networking across disciplines, scientific writing, laboratory techniques, and data sharing standards. Further, respondents noted they had gained experience in developing, nurturing, and respecting interpersonal relationships and diversity of opinions. This was reinforced with participant observation data. In other interdisciplinary groups studied in conjunction with this exemplary team, students were not typically exposed to the inner workings of the team such as leadership meetings. On this team, students were exposed to all conversations, which became an important component of the mentoring and advice structure, serving to train future scientists in all aspects of team integration and leadership development. Belonging to this large interdisciplinary team was effectively training, building, and structuring the team.

Interpersonal relationships increase scientific productivity

Longevity of relationships is an important factor in creating social cohesion, reducing uncertainty, and increasing reliability and reciprocity (Baum et al., 2007 ; Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Previous literature has, however, rarely documented the importance of time in building the structure of the network (Phelps et al., 2012 ) and few longitudinal studies of scientific teams exist. Further, it has long been hypothesised that greater interaction among people increases the quality and innovativeness of ideas generated, which may in turn increase productivity (Cimenler et al., 2016 ). Our case-based study found that the mentoring and advice ties existed in a symbiotic relationship with the scientific productivity network where the practices of the team were simultaneously training scientists. This aligns with social network literature that interactions can structure the social network and the network structure influences interactions (Henry, 2009 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Second, intentional mentoring programmes have demonstrated a positive relationship between interdisciplinary mentoring and increased research productivity outcomes such as grant funding and publications (Spence et al., 2018 ). Finally, this finding also aligns with literature on the generation of new knowledge (Phelps et al., 2012 ). Knowledge creation has traditionally been framed in terms of individual creativity, but recent studies have placed more emphasis on how the contribution of social dynamics are influential in explaining this process (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1998 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ; Sawyer, 2003 ; Zhang et al., 2009 ). Thus, while we might think that science drives the team, in this case-based study, the team’s interpersonal relationships were the driver of the team’s scientific productivity.

Fulfilling the land grant mission

As noted above, this exemplary team fulfilled all three goals of the land grant mission. First, the team was training scientists at all levels, from undergraduate students, to graduate students, postdocs, new faculty, and external collaborators, including community partners. In many instances, the training and mentoring was structured in a vertically integrated manner. For example, postdocs were training graduate and undergraduate students, typical of many teams. In addition to the “top-down” scenarios, however, the team also encouraged training that went from the bottom up as well. Effectively, this is a hallmark of successful teams in other sectors such as emergency responders and elite military teams – whomever has the knowledge to drive the issue at hand is the effective “leader” in that mission (Kotler and Wheal, 2008 ). Second, the team excelled in research and discovery, partnering with a diversity of external collaborators to do so. This created a network structure wherein the team clearly utilised the collaborators for mentoring and advice. Organisations with a core-periphery network structure like this team have been reported to be more creative because ties on the periphery, such as external collaborators, can span boundaries and access diverse information (Perry-Smith, 2006 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Finally, because the team’s collaborators included community partners and practitioners, they were also influencing policy and practice. This resulted in an overall greater impact for the team’s science and allowed them to tailor their research to best meet the needs of society (Barge and Shockley-Zalabak, 2008 ).

Future research

This study provides a unique contribution to team science literature because it longitudinally studied the development and processes of a successful interdisciplinary team (Wooten et al., 2014 ). Future research on the elements of effective interdisciplinary teaming is required in five key areas. First, identification of best practices that inhibit or support teams is necessary (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). Second, previous research has found that small teams are best at disrupting science with new ideas and opportunities (Wu et al., 2019 ); however, practices large teams use to create new knowledge have been poorly documented. Third, successful training concepts for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers need additional consideration (Knowlton et al., 2014 ; Ryan et al., 2012 ; Sarraj et al., 2017 ). Fourth, we hypothesise that graduate students act as bridges in teams to connect scientific disciplines and prevent clustering the network. Future research should investigate the role of graduate students in creating knowledge through interdisciplinary teams. Finally, additional research is needed to better recognise and reward scientists who undertake integration and implementation (Bammer et al., 2020 ).

Data availability

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available in the Mountain Scholar repository, https://doi.org/10.25675/10217/214187

Attewell P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organ Sci 3(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.1.1

Article Google Scholar

Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Midgley G, Klein JT, … Richardson GP (2020). Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0

Barge JK, Shockley-Zalabak P (2008) Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. J Appl Commun Res 36(3):251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880802172277

Baum JAC, McEvily B, Rowley T (2007) Better with age? Tie longevity and the performance implications of bridging and closure. SSRN (vol. 23). INFORMS. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1032282

Bennett ML (2011) Collaboration and team science: a field guide-team science toolkit. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/TSResourceTool.aspx?tid=1&rid=267

Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci Technol Human Value 41(4):571–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915614103

Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2014) UCINET. Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining. Springer New York, New York, NY, 10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_316

Google Scholar

Borner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, Uzzi B (2010). A multi-level systems perspective for the science. Sci Transl Med 2: 49

Bozeman B, Fay D, Slade CP (2013, February 28). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. J Technol Transf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8

Brandes U, Wagner D (2011) Analysis and visualization of social networks. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 321–340. 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_15

Cimenler O, Reeves KA, Skvoretz J, Oztekin A (2016) A causal analytic model to evaluate the impact of researchers’ individual innovativeness on their collaborative outputs. J Model Manag 11(2):585–611

Collins H, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book Google Scholar

Collins JC (2001) Good to great. HarperBusiness, New York, NY

Csikszentmihalyi M (1998) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In: Sternberg R (ed) Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–336. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.018

Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2008) Who collaborates successfully? prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Cscw: 2008 Acm conference on computer supported cooperative work, Conference Proceedings, pp. 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460633

De Montjoye YA, Stopczynski A, Shmueli E, Pentland A, Lehmann S (2014) The strength of the strongest ties in collaborative problem solving. Sci Rep 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05277

Dozier AM, Martina CA, O’Dell NL, Fogg TT, Lurie SJ, Rubinstein EP, Pearson TA (2014) Identifying emerging research collaborations and networks: method development. Eval Health Prof 37(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713501693

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Duhigg Ch (2016) What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team-The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html

Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, Keyton J, Trochim W (2011) Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res Eval 20(2):145–158. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876580

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fiore SM (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork. Small Group Res 39(3):251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797

Giuffre K (2013) Communities and networks: using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies, 1st edn. Polity Press, Cambridge MA, 10.1177/0042098015621842

Greenwood RE (1993) The case study approach. Bus Commun Q 56(4):46–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999305600409

Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Am J Sociol 104(5):1439–1493. https://doi.org/10.1086/210179

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT (2019) Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. Springer Nature, Switzerland

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Huang GC, Serrano KJ, Rice EL, Tsakraklides SP, Fiore SM (2018) The science of team science: a review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psychol 73(4):532–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S (2012) A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl Behav Med 2(4):415–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y

Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005a) Introduction to social network methods: table of contents. Riverside, CA. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/

Hanneman R, Riddle M (2005b) Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Hanneman/publication/235737492_Introduction_to_social_network_methods/links/0deec52261e1577e6c000000.pdf

Henry AD (2009). Society for human ecology the challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to. source: human ecology review (Vol. 16). Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/stable/pdf/24707537.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae9ffb98fef69c055ab05ead486b9ca7e

Klein C, DiazGranados D, Salas E, Le H, Burke CS, Lyons R, Goodwin GF (2009) Does team building work? Small Group Res 40(2):181–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821

Knowlton JL, Halvorsen KE, Handler RM, O’Rourke M (2014) Teaching interdisciplinary sustainability science teamwork skills to graduate students using in-person and web-based interactions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 6(12):9428–9440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129428

Kotler S, Wheal J (2008) Stealing fire: how silicon valley, the navy seals, and maverick scientists are revolutionising the way we live and work. Visual Comput (vol. 24). Retrieved from https://qyybjydyd01.storage.googleapis.com/MDA2MjQyOTY1NQ==01.pdf

Lee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):673–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359

Matthews NE, Cizauskas CA, Layton DS, Stamford L, Shapira P (2019) Collaborating constructively for sustainable biotechnology. Sci Rep 9(1):19033. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54331-7

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Patton MQ (2011) Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press

Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad Manag J 49(1):85–101. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785503

Phelps C, Heidl R, Wadhwa A, Paris H (2012) Agenda knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: a review and research. J Manag 38(4):1115–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640

Qualtrics Labs I (2005). Qualtrics Labs, Inc. Provo, Utah, USA

R Studio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, http://www.rstudio.com/

Read EK, O’Rourke M, Hong GS, Hanson PC, Winslow LA, Crowley S, Weathers KC (2016) Building the team for team science. Ecosphere 7(3):e01291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1291

Ryan MM, Yeung RS, Bass M, Kapil M, Slater S, Creedon K (2012) Developing research capacity among graduate students in an interdisciplinary environment. High Educ Res Dev 31(4):557–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.653956

Sarraj H, Hellmich M, Chao C, Aronson J, Cestone C, Wooten K, Allan, B (2017) Training future team scientists: reflections from translational course. In: Team science training for graduate students and postdocs. Clearwater, FL. Retrieved from www.scienceofteamscience.org

Sawyer RK (2003) Emergence in creativity and development. In: Sawyer RK, John-Steiner V, Moran S., Sternberg RJ, Nakamura J et al. (eds.) Creativity and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp. 12–60

Chapter Google Scholar

Senge PM (1991) The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Perform Instruct 30(5):37–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170300510

Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 20(7):595–623. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7<595::AID-SMJ47>3.0.CO;2-5

Spence JP, Buddenbaum JL, Bice PJ, Welch JL, Carroll AE (2018) Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty. BMC Med Educ 18(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1290-3

Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008). The ecology of team science. Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prevent Med https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003

Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Wooten KC, Calhoun WJ, Bhavnani S, Rose RM, Ameredes B, Brasier AR (2015) Evolution of multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs): insights for accelerating translational innovations. Clin Transl Sci 8(5):542–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12266

Wooten KC, Rose RM, Ostir GV, Calhoun WJ, Ameredes BT, Brasier AR (2014) Assessing and evaluating multidisciplinary translational teams: a mixed methods approach. Eval Health Profession 37(1):33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713504433

Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA (2019) Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9

Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Yin RK (2017) Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th edn.). Sage Publications

Zhang HH, Ding C, Schutte NS, Li R (2020) How team emotional intelligence connects to task performance: a network approach. Small Group Res 51(4):492–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419889660

Article CAS Google Scholar

Zhang J, Scardamalia M, Reeve R, Messina R (2009) Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. J Learn Sci 18(1):7–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to Elizabeth Scodfidio for helping with data, images and more!. The research reported in this publication was supported by Colorado State University’s Office of the Vice President for Research Catalyst for Innovative Partnerships Programme. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Vice President for Research. Supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535. Contents are the authors’ sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views. Funding and support were provided by grants from the National Science Foundation’s Ecology of Infectious Diseases Programme (NSF EF-0723676 and NSF EF-1413925).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Divergent Science LLC, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Hannah B. Love

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Jennifer E. Cross, Bailey Fosdick, Kevin R. Crooks & Susan VandeWoude

University of New Mexico and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Ellen R. Fisher

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HBL conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, curated the data, analysed the data, conducted the investigation, worked as the project manager, managed the software, validated the data, created visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; BF conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, curated the data, analysed the data, managed the software, validated the data, supervised all aspects of the research, created visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; JC conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, acquired funding, supervised data collection, and reviewed and edited the paper; KC and SV wrote the paper, secured funding, reviewed and edited the paper; and ERF conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, supervised all aspects of the research, acquired funding, created the visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah B. Love .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

HBL, BF, JC, and ERF declare no competing interests. KC and SV are members of the exemplary team

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, supplementary data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Love, H.B., Cross, J.E., Fosdick, B. et al. Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 106 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2021

Accepted : 14 April 2021

Published : 06 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Introductory Guide to Research in Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal communication typically involves communication within a dyadic relationship. As a result, interpersonal communication is pervasive throughout one’s life. In a single day, an individual may experience interpersonal communication with their mother, their best friend, their teacher, their spouse, and many other individuals. Interpersonal scholars are interested in how meaning is shared within these relationships, how relationships are developed and terminated, how identity is managed in relationships, and much more.

Defining Interpersonal Communication

Defining interpersonal communication is no easy task. While most scholars cannot agree on one single definition, there is a general consensus that interpersonal communication is the sharing of meaning and messages between people who share some level of interdependence. This meaning can be shared in-person, via a computer-mediated channel, or through audio or mobile technologies, and it can be verbal or nonverbal in nature.

Given the wide latitude offered in this definition, interpersonal communication has a very large scope in its research. As a result, interpersonal communication overlaps heavily with other disciplines like health communication and family communication. While interpersonal communication research is usually focused on interactions between two people, there are some cases of high intimacy and interdependence that extend this definition to a small group (e.g., a nuclear family).

Most often, interpersonal communication research is focused on romantic relationships, friendships, family relationships, relationships between colleagues, and doctor-patient relationships. However, given the definition outlined above, it is clear that interpersonal communication extends to a vast number of one-on-one interactions, both formal and informal. To illustrate this, a teacher and student experience interpersonal communication during office hours, as do a coach and an athlete’s parent, along with a police officer and the person they just pulled over. In all of these relationships, interpersonal communication takes place.

Interpersonal communication researchers are interested in how various factors influence interpersonal communication outcomes. As with most communication researchers, they investigate how messages are encoded and decoded, how the context and channel of communication affect communication outcomes, and how individual aspects of the communicators affect the nature of the communication. To illustrate, review the following research questions:

When a supervisor displays anger to a subordinate, how does this affect subordinate motivation?
How do parents manage the revelation that a child is adopted, and what outcomes result from different tactics?
When a teacher discloses personal information to a student, how can that affect the student’s perception of that teacher?
If a couple is choosing not to have children, how do they manage this information, and what rules do they use to decide when to share it?

In reviewing these questions, it becomes clear that they could be examined from various angles. For example, in the first question it will matter whether the anger is directed at the employee, the employee’s colleague, or a third-party vendor. It would also matter whether the employee felt responsible for the anger and how often the supervisor shows anger in the day-to-day working relationship. Interpersonal communication researchers are driven to answer questions like this in the research they conduct.

Common Relational Interpersonal Communication Theories and Constructs

As a broad area of study, there are many theories and constructs related to interpersonal communication. As mentioned above, interpersonal communication scholars typically examine the communication that occurs within romantic, platonic, and familial contexts. While there are certainly theories and constructs that apply to more formal contexts, this section discusses some of the most common theories and constructs used in the study of relationships in interpersonal communication. Students should examine the following theories and constructs to gain a better understanding of this area of study. Ultimately, this may help students understand whether or not they have an interest in exploring this area of research.

Additionally, while some of the theories and constructs articulated below may have originated in the study of interpersonal communication, they are not exclusive to the discipline. Other sections in our Introductory Guides to Communication Research will reveal that other disciplines borrow from one another, applying well-established theories from one discipline to another.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory : This theory outlines the basic process communicators go through to gain knowledge about other people. This theory suggests that most people want to reduce uncertainty when meeting someone new because it allows them to predict and explain their behavior during interactions. When there is high uncertainty people feel anxiety due to the inability to predict and plan behavior. Therefore, humans have a goal of reducing uncertainty in interpersonal relationships.

This theory states that we reduce uncertainty through passive, active, and interactive strategies. Passive strategies tend to involve observation. Active strategies involve tactics like asking others for information, looking the person up online, and showing up where they will be. Interactive strategies involve communicating directly with the individual a person is trying to learn more about.

Social Penetration Theory : This theory addresses the process individuals use to get to know each other better, with a specific interest in how information is shared. This theory suggests that communicators share information with others that moves from shallow levels to more intimate levels over time. Likewise, an individual may start discussing one or two topics in a new relationship, but over time this expands to a variety of topics.

Thus, this theory suggests that relationships develop through sharing information that progressively grows in breadth and depth. To illustrate, it would be normal during an initial conversation for someone to share where they are from or what they do for work. This information lacks depth, which is normal in an initial interaction. In contrast, it would be shocking to meet a new person and have them share about their problems with alcohol, insecurities about their weight, or difficulties in their marriage.

Self-Disclosure : As seen above, social penetration theory touches on two aspects of self-disclosure: breadth and depth. In total, there are four dimensions to self-disclosure: breadth, depth, frequency, and valence. Frequency is the rate at which individuals share information relative to the number of interactions they have over a given time period. Valence is the positive or negative nature of the disclosure (e.g., “I earned an A on the exam” vs “I was caught shoplifting”).

In addition to these four factors, self-disclosure is also viewed through the lens of appropriateness. This is not a core dimension of self-disclosure given that it is assessed through the other dimensions. For example, if a supervisor disclosed information of great depth on the first day of a subordinate’s new job, this would often be considered inappropriate.

Communication Accommodation Theory : This theory explains how and why individuals adjust their behaviors based on the behaviors of those with whom they are interacting. In some situations, communicators tend to mimic the behavior of their partner(s) in a communication interaction. Likewise, this theory also addresses the observation that, at times, communicators will contradict the behavior of their communication partner(s). The former behavior is called convergence, while the latter is called divergence. Both forms of accommodation can be seen in the way communicators use their nonverbal and paraverbal behavior (i.e. the tone, pacing, inflection, and pitch of one’s voice, which convey meaning independent of the content of what one says), along with the actual words they choose to use.

For example, if a professional early in their career is spending time networking with older, more accomplished professionals, they are likely to use more professional language, dress like those older professionals, and reflect their nonverbal behavior while communicating. In this case, the young professional is converging. On the contrary, a communicator may lower their voice during an argument in an attempt to diverge from their communication partner who is raising their voice. This may be done so that the first communicator can show how calm they are, but it might also be done to motivate the other communicator to converge and lower their voice.

Face Negotiation Theory : The concept of face — the self-image we present to others — acts as the foundation for this theory. According to face negotiation theory, humans go through the act of facework in social settings. Facework consists of the communicative behaviors we use to build our ideal face in the presence of others. Facework also involves supporting and impeding others as they work to build their public face. For example, a person may brag about a new job promotion with the goal of building a positive public face. This person’s friend might point out that they are bragging, simultaneously tearing down the face of the person bragging while attempting to build their own public face.

It is important to note that effective facework varies from culture to culture. As one might imagine, the act of sharing one’s accomplishments would be much better for building face in a culture that values individual achievement (e.g., the United States), while this would be less effective in a culture that values group achievement (e.g., China). Likewise, facework varies from relationship to relationship. Building positive face in a marriage will look different than in a sibling relationship, which will look different from a friendship. Researchers interested in face negotiation have questions about how face is managed across a multitude of different contexts and relationships.

Relational Dialectics Theory : This theory is founded on the basis that a relationship is a place where opposing desires are managed. This theory describes these opposing desires as dialectics and suggests that these are a source of friction in relationships. For example, the integration-separation dialect is one dialect that is experienced in a relationship. Integration is the extent to which we have practical and psychological closeness with a relationship partner. On the other hand, separation is the extent to which we have practical or psychological distance from a relationship partner.

To illustrate, a couple who shares an apartment, and bills, and a car will feel more integrated than a couple who is simply dating and seeing each other for dinner and a movie once a week. This theory suggests that we try to manage this dialectic and that even the most integrated relationships involve management of this dialectic. As an example, a couple married for 20 years probably does not want to spend all their time together and the husband may go on a run once a week with his friend, while the wife gets coffee with a friend of hers.

Integration and separation is just one of the primary dialectics involved in relationships. There is also the stability-change dialectic and the expression-nonexpression dialectic. Stability-change involves wanting continuity while still desiring novelty in a relationship. Expression-nonexpression involves the desire to share private information with others while also wanting to keep some information private.

Identity Management Theory : During relationship development, relational partners work to establish who they are as individuals while also establishing the nature of their relationship. This theory addresses a variety of ways that individuals seek to establish their personal and relational identities, but it takes a special interest in how culture plays a role in this process. For example, if a Latina woman grew up in an urban area, but married a white man from a rural area, they would experience stark cultural differences. This would require identity management for each person to ensure that they retained their own cultural uniqueness while establishing a shared identity within the relationship. Indeed, it would be unlikely that this couple would spend their life together practicing entirely Latin cultural traditions. Yet, it would be equally as unlikely that their relationship would eliminate these traditions entirely.

As one might imagine, a relationship of this type results in situations in which individual cultural identities are mutually exclusive — the self-other face dialectic. In the example above, the wife is likely to have a greater cultural pressure to take care of her parents in old age than her husband. As the parents age, there may be a point where the couple needs to decide if and when they want her father to live with them. With different cultural expectations, this couple may experience friction, forcing them to negotiate this situation based on their own cultural backgrounds and the nature of their specific relationship.

Communication Privacy Management Theory : In every relationship, individuals are required to negotiate openness and privacy. As such, every relationship is a constant negotiation of public and private information. This theory suggests that individuals have boundaries around their information and want control over who can access that boundary. Maintaining strong boundaries can ensure safety and security, while opening boundaries can create intimacy and develop relationships. On the contrary, strong boundaries can delay or prevent the development of relationships, while having open boundaries creates vulnerability and risks the sharing of private information. The tension between needing to share and needing to protect information exists within every relationship. Likewise, each relationship contains shared information, some of which is public and some of which is private to the relationship.

As an example, imagine a close friendship in which one friend loses their job. He or she may choose to keep this information to him or herself, or he or she may choose to share it with a close friend. In sharing this information, he or she has opened a privacy boundary and allowed this friend to access the information. In doing so, the friend now has the choice to reveal this information to others or keep it to him or herself. This is where relationships tend to see friction because individuals develop rules for information sharing, and those rules may be implicit or explicit. In this example, the jobless friend may expect his or her friend to keep this job loss a secret. Given that this is a relatively personal experience, he or she may assume the other person knows to keep it confidential. Because this rule was implicit, the friend receiving the information may make the assumption that because the two friends are very close with a third friend that this third friend is already aware of the job loss. Thus, when the second friend talks to this third friend and mention the job loss, they may not feel they have done anything wrong. Yet, the friend who lost the job may feel that a privacy rule was violated. In his or her mind, the nature of the information should have made it clear that it was private.

Ultimately, this theory is interested in how individuals share and manage information within relationships. This includes how individuals make the decision to share, how rules are established, how boundaries are managed, how partners in a relationship manage rule violations, and much more. Researchers examine questions related to these parts of the theory across various relationships to gain a greater understanding of how privacy is managed.

Theory of Planned Behavior & Social Cognitive Theory : It is worth mentioning that these two theories, while initially conceived of in the realm of the interpersonal, are now widely associated with health communication. The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that there is predicative power in knowing if an individual has the intention (and the skill) to initiate an action or behavior. In other words, this theory posits that if an individual has the intention to do something, they probably will.

Similarly, Social Cognitive Theory suggests that human beings are socialized learners. Put differently, individuals observe the actions and behaviors of others, internalize that action or behavior, and eventually replicate what they observed.

Emerging Trends in Interpersonal Communication: The Dark Side

While there is no singular theory to interpersonal communication’s dark side, interpersonal communication researchers are increasingly examining areas of relationships once thought to be taboo. This area of study is built on the metaphor of dark and light, suggesting that all facets of interpersonal communication have some level of each. Indeed, romantic relationships are often thought of through a positive lens. However, if the dark side metaphor is applied, new areas of study emerge. For example, a researcher may begin to think about codependence, infidelity, or abuse through a communicative lens.

Another intricacy that emerged from the study of the dark side of interpersonal communication involves arguing and fighting. By and large, arguments between friends or spouses are generally thought of as a negative event. However, research in this field shed light on the age-old adage that “it’s not what you argue about, it’s how you argue.” Research further yielded that couples, both romantic and platonic, who argue with a purpose and do not devolve into fights filled with ad hominin attacks, actually better manage their relationships. Moreover, an argument will often involve forgiveness and reconciliation, which may ultimately strengthen the relationship. While “fighting” in relationships is negative, research continues to show that “arguing,” when done properly, is a positive force. Scholars continue to examine these “gray areas” in interpersonal communication, which have relevance in the improvement of social bonds at both the personal and the greater societal levels.

Additional Resources

Interpersonal communication research is a popular area of study for many graduate students given its broad scope and application across many facets of life. Students interested in learning more about interpersonal communication should review the following resources:

Communication Accommodation in Intercultural Encounters – Howard Giles and Kimberly A. Noels
Communication Privacy Management and Health and Risk Messaging – Sandra Petronio and Maria K. Venetis
Identity Management Theory: Facework in Intercultural Relationships – Tadasu Todd Imahori and William R. Cupach
Interpersonal Communication Across the Lifespan – Carla L. Fisher and Thomas Roccotagliata
Relational Dialectics Theory – Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite
Self-Disclosure – lumenlearning.com
Social Penetration Theory – University of Minnesota
The Dark Side of Interpersonal Relationships – University of Minnesota

Topics in Interpersonal Communication

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

This article examines an interpersonal communication theory that attempts to explain how humans utilize different strategies to reduce uncertainty in social interactions.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6.1 Principles of Interpersonal Communication

Learning objectives.

Define interpersonal communication.
Discuss the functional aspects of interpersonal communication.
Discuss the cultural aspects of interpersonal communication.

In order to understand interpersonal communication, we must understand how interpersonal communication functions to meet our needs and goals and how our interpersonal communication connects to larger social and cultural systems. Interpersonal communication is the process of exchanging messages between people whose lives mutually influence one another in unique ways in relation to social and cultural norms. This definition highlights the fact that interpersonal communication involves two or more people who are interdependent to some degree and who build a unique bond based on the larger social and cultural contexts to which they belong. So a brief exchange with a grocery store clerk who you don’t know wouldn’t be considered interpersonal communication, because you and the clerk are not influencing each other in significant ways. Obviously, if the clerk were a friend, family member, coworker, or romantic partner, the communication would fall into the interpersonal category. In this section, we discuss the importance of studying interpersonal communication and explore its functional and cultural aspects.

Why Study Interpersonal Communication?

Interpersonal communication has many implications for us in the real world. Did you know that interpersonal communication played an important role in human evolution? Early humans who lived in groups, rather than alone, were more likely to survive, which meant that those with the capability to develop interpersonal bonds were more likely to pass these traits on to the next generation (Leary, 2001). Did you know that interpersonal skills have a measurable impact on psychological and physical health? People with higher levels of interpersonal communication skills are better able to adapt to stress, have greater satisfaction in relationships and more friends, and have less depression and anxiety (Hargie, 2011). In fact, prolonged isolation has been shown to severely damage a human (Williams & Zadro, 2001). Have you ever heard of the boy or girl who was raised by wolves? There have been documented cases of abandoned or neglected children, sometimes referred to as feral children, who survived using their animalistic instincts but suffered psychological and physical trauma as a result of their isolation (Candland, 1995). There are also examples of solitary confinement, which has become an ethical issue in many countries. In “supermax” prisons, which now operate in at least forty-four states, prisoners spend 22.5 to 24 hours a day in their cells and have no contact with the outside world or other prisoners (Shalev, 2011).

Solitary confinement is common in supermax prisons, where prisoners spend 22.5 to 24 hours a day in their cells.

Jmiller291 – Solitary Confinement, Old Geelong Gaol 7 – CC BY 2.0.

Aside from making your relationships and health better, interpersonal communication skills are highly sought after by potential employers, consistently ranking in the top ten in national surveys (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2010). Each of these examples illustrates how interpersonal communication meets our basic needs as humans for security in our social bonds, health, and careers. But we are not born with all the interpersonal communication skills we’ll need in life. So in order to make the most out of our interpersonal relationships, we must learn some basic principles.

Think about a time when a short communication exchange affected a relationship almost immediately. Did you mean for it to happen? Many times we engage in interpersonal communication to fulfill certain goals we may have, but sometimes we are more successful than others. This is because interpersonal communication is strategic, meaning we intentionally create messages to achieve certain goals that help us function in society and our relationships. Goals vary based on the situation and the communicators, but ask yourself if you are generally successful at achieving the goals with which you enter a conversation or not. If so, you may already possess a high degree of interpersonal communication competence , or the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in personal relationships. This chapter will help you understand some key processes that can make us more effective and appropriate communicators. You may be asking, “Aren’t effectiveness and appropriateness the same thing?” The answer is no. Imagine that you are the manager of a small department of employees at a marketing agency where you often have to work on deadlines. As a deadline approaches, you worry about your team’s ability to work without your supervision to complete the tasks, so you interrupt everyone’s work and assign them all individual tasks and give them a bulleted list of each subtask with a deadline to turn each part in to you. You meet the deadline and have effectively accomplished your goal. Over the next month, one of your employees puts in her two-weeks’ notice, and you learn that she and a few others have been talking about how they struggle to work with you as a manager. Although your strategy was effective, many people do not respond well to strict hierarchy or micromanaging and may have deemed your communication inappropriate. A more competent communicator could have implemented the same detailed plan to accomplish the task in a manner that included feedback, making the employees feel more included and heard. In order to be competent interpersonal communicators, we must learn to balance being effective and appropriate.

Functional Aspects of Interpersonal Communication

We have different needs that are met through our various relationships. Whether we are aware of it or not, we often ask ourselves, “What can this relationship do for me?” In order to understand how relationships achieve strategic functions, we will look at instrumental goals, relationship-maintenance goals, and self-presentation goals.

What motivates you to communicate with someone? We frequently engage in communication designed to achieve instrumental goals such as gaining compliance (getting someone to do something for us), getting information we need, or asking for support (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000). In short, instrumental talk helps us “get things done” in our relationships. Our instrumental goals can be long term or day to day. The following are examples of communicating for instrumental goals:

You ask your friend to help you move this weekend (gaining/resisting compliance).
You ask your coworker to remind you how to balance your cash register till at the end of your shift (requesting or presenting information).
You console your roommate after he loses his job (asking for or giving support).

When we communicate to achieve relational goals, we are striving to maintain a positive relationship. Engaging in relationship-maintenance communication is like taking your car to be serviced at the repair shop. To have a good relationship, just as to have a long-lasting car, we should engage in routine maintenance. For example, have you ever wanted to stay in and order a pizza and watch a movie, but your friend suggests that you go to a local restaurant and then to the theatre? Maybe you don’t feel like being around a lot of people or spending money (or changing out of your pajamas), but you decide to go along with his or her suggestion. In that moment, you are putting your relational partner’s needs above your own, which will likely make him or her feel valued. It is likely that your friend has made or will also make similar concessions to put your needs first, which indicates that there is a satisfactory and complimentary relationship. Obviously, if one partner always insists on having his or her way or always concedes, becoming the martyr, the individuals are not exhibiting interpersonal-communication competence. Other routine relational tasks include celebrating special occasions or honoring accomplishments, spending time together, and checking in regularly by phone, e-mail, text, social media, or face-to-face communication. The following are examples of communicating for relational goals:

You organize an office party for a coworker who has just become a US citizen (celebrating/honoring accomplishments).
You make breakfast with your mom while you are home visiting (spending time together).
You post a message on your long-distance friend’s Facebook wall saying you miss him (checking in).

Gathering to celebrate a colleague’s birthday is a good way for coworkers to achieve relational goals in the workplace.

Twingly – Happy b-day – CC BY 2.0.

Another form of relational talk that I have found very useful is what I call the DTR talk , which stands for “defining-the-relationship talk” and serves a relationship-maintenance function. In the early stages of a romantic relationship, you may have a DTR talk to reduce uncertainty about where you stand by deciding to use the term boyfriend , girlfriend , or partner . In a DTR talk, you may proactively define your relationship by saying, “I’m glad I’m with you and no one else.” Your romantic interest may respond favorably, echoing or rephrasing your statement, which gives you an indication that he or she agrees with you. The talk may continue on from there, and you may talk about what to call your relationship, set boundaries, or not. It is not unusual to have several DTR talks as a relationship progresses. At times, you may have to define the relationship when someone steps over a line by saying, “I think we should just be friends.” This more explicit and reactive (rather than proactive) communication can be especially useful in situations where a relationship may be unethical, inappropriate, or create a conflict of interest—for example, in a supervisor-supervisee, mentor-mentee, professional-client, or collegial relationship.

We also pursue self-presentation goals by adapting our communication in order to be perceived in particular ways. Just as many companies, celebrities, and politicians create a public image, we desire to present different faces in different contexts. The well-known scholar Erving Goffman compared self-presentation to a performance and suggested we all perform different roles in different contexts (Goffman, 1959). Indeed, competent communicators can successfully manage how others perceive them by adapting to situations and contexts. A parent may perform the role of stern head of household, supportive shoulder to cry on, or hip and culturally aware friend to his or her child. A newly hired employee may initially perform the role of serious and agreeable coworker. Sometimes people engage in communication that doesn’t necessarily present them in a positive way. For example, Haley, the oldest daughter in the television show Modern Family , often presents herself as incapable in order to get her parents to do her work. In one episode she pretended she didn’t know how to crack open an egg so her mom Claire would make the brownies for her school bake sale. Here are some other examples of communicating to meet self-presentation goals:

As your boss complains about struggling to format the company newsletter, you tell her about your experience with Microsoft Word and editing and offer to look over the newsletter once she’s done to fix the formatting (presenting yourself as competent).
You and your new college roommate stand in your dorm room full of boxes. You let him choose which side of the room he wants and then invite him to eat lunch with you (presenting yourself as friendly).
You say, “I don’t know,” in response to a professor’s question even though you have an idea of the answer (presenting yourself as aloof, or “too cool for school”).

“Getting Real”

Image Consultants

The Association of Image Consultants International (AICI) states that appearance, behavior, and communication are the “ABC’s of image.” Many professional image consultants are licensed by this organization and provide a variety of services to politicians, actors, corporate trainers, public speakers, organizations, corporations, and television personalities such as news anchors. [1] Visit the AICI’s website ( http://www.aici.org/About_Image_Consulting/Image_Consulting.htm ) and read about image consulting, including the “How to Choose,” “How to Become,” and “FAQs” sections. Then consider the following questions:

If you were to hire an image consultant for yourself, what would you have them “work on” for you? Why?
What communication skills that you’ve learned about in the book so far would be most important for an image consultant to possess?
Many politicians use image consultants to help them connect to voters and win elections. Do you think this is ethical? Why or why not?

As if managing instrumental, relational, and self-presentation goals isn’t difficult enough when we consider them individually, we must also realize that the three goal types are always working together. In some situations we may privilege instrumental goals over relational or self-presentation goals. For example, if your partner is offered a great job in another state and you decided to go with him or her, which will move you away from your job and social circle, you would be focusing on relational goals over instrumental or self-presentation goals. When you’re facing a stressful situation and need your best friend’s help and call saying, “Hurry and bring me a gallon of gas or I’m going to be late to work!” you are privileging instrumental goals over relational goals. Of course, if the person really is your best friend, you can try to smooth things over or make up for your shortness later. However, you probably wouldn’t call your boss and bark a request to bring you a gallon of gas so you can get to work, because you likely want your boss to see you as dependable and likable, meaning you have focused on self-presentation goals.

The functional perspective of interpersonal communication indicates that we communicate to achieve certain goals in our relationships. We get things done in our relationships by communicating for instrumental goals. We maintain positive relationships through relational goals. We also strategically present ourselves in order to be perceived in particular ways. As our goals are met and our relationships build, they become little worlds we inhabit with our relational partners, complete with their own relationship cultures.

Cultural Aspects of Interpersonal Communication

Aside from functional aspects of interpersonal communication, communicating in relationships also helps establish relationship cultures. Just as large groups of people create cultures through shared symbols (language), values, and rituals, people in relationships also create cultures at a smaller level. Relationship cultures are the climates established through interpersonal communication that are unique to the relational partners but based on larger cultural and social norms. We also enter into new relationships with expectations based on the schemata we have developed in previous relationships and learned from our larger society and culture. Think of relationship schemata as blueprints or plans that show the inner workings of a relationship. Just like a schematic or diagram for assembling a new computer desk helps you put it together, relationship schemata guide us in how we believe our interpersonal relationships should work and how to create them. So from our life experiences in our larger cultures, we bring building blocks, or expectations, into our relationships, which fundamentally connect our relationships to the outside world (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000). Even though we experience our relationships as unique, they are at least partially built on preexisting cultural norms.

Some additional communicative acts that create our relational cultures include relational storytelling, personal idioms, routines and rituals, and rules and norms. Storytelling is an important part of how we create culture in larger contexts and how we create a uniting and meaningful storyline for our relationships. In fact, an anthropologist coined the term homo narrans to describe the unique storytelling capability of modern humans (Fisher, 1985). We often rely on relationship storytelling to create a sense of stability in the face of change, test the compatibility of potential new relational partners, or create or maintain solidarity in established relationships. Think of how you use storytelling among your friends, family, coworkers, and other relational partners. If you recently moved to a new place for college, you probably experienced some big changes. One of the first things you started to do was reestablish a social network—remember, human beings are fundamentally social creatures. As you began to encounter new people in your classes, at your new job, or in your new housing, you most likely told some stories of your life before—about your friends, job, or teachers back home. One of the functions of this type of storytelling, early in forming interpersonal bonds, is a test to see if the people you are meeting have similar stories or can relate to your previous relationship cultures. In short, you are testing the compatibility of your schemata with the new people you encounter. Although storytelling will continue to play a part in your relational development with these new people, you may be surprised at how quickly you start telling stories with your new friends about things that have happened since you met. You may recount stories about your first trip to the dance club together, the weird geology professor you had together, or the time you all got sick from eating the cafeteria food. In short, your old stories will start to give way to new stories that you’ve created. Storytelling within relationships helps create solidarity, or a sense of belonging and closeness. This type of storytelling can be especially meaningful for relationships that don’t fall into the dominant culture. For example, research on a gay male friendship circle found that the gay men retold certain dramatic stories frequently to create a sense of belonging and to also bring in new members to the group (Jones Jr., 2007).

We also create personal idioms in our relationships (Bell & Healey, 1992). If you’ve ever studied foreign languages, you know that idiomatic expressions like “I’m under the weather today” are basically nonsense when translated. For example, the equivalent of this expression in French translates to “I’m not in my plate today.” When you think about it, it doesn’t make sense to use either expression to communicate that you’re sick, but the meaning would not be lost on English or French speakers, because they can decode their respective idiom. This is also true of idioms we create in our interpersonal relationships. Just as idioms are unique to individual cultures and languages, personal idioms are unique to certain relationships, and they create a sense of belonging due to the inside meaning shared by the relational partners. In romantic relationships, for example, it is common for individuals to create nicknames for each other that may not directly translate for someone who overhears them. You and your partner may find that calling each other “booger” is sweet, while others may think it’s gross. Researchers have found that personal idioms are commonly used in the following categories: activities, labels for others, requests, and sexual references (Bell & Healey, 1992). The recent cultural phenomenon Jersey Shore on MTV has given us plenty of examples of personal idioms created by the friends on the show. GTL is an activity idiom that stands for “gym, tan, laundry”—a common routine for the cast of the show. There are many examples of idioms labeling others, including grenade for an unattractive female, gorilla juice head for a very muscular man, and backpack for a clingy boyfriend/girlfriend or a clingy person at a club. There are also many idioms for sexual references, such as smush , meaning to hook up / have sex, and smush room , which is the room set aside for these activities (Benigno, 2010). Idioms help create cohesiveness, or solidarity in relationships, because they are shared cues between cultural insiders. They also communicate the uniqueness of the relationship and create boundaries, since meaning is only shared within the relationship.

Routines and rituals help form relational cultures through their natural development in repeated or habitual interaction (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000). While “routine” may connote boring in some situations, relationship routines are communicative acts that create a sense of predictability in a relationship that is comforting. Some communicative routines may develop around occasions or conversational topics.

For example, it is common for long-distance friends or relatives to schedule a recurring phone conversation or for couples to review the day’s events over dinner. When I studied abroad in Sweden, my parents and I talked on the phone at the same time every Sunday, which established a comfortable routine for us. Other routines develop around entire conversational episodes. For example, two best friends recounting their favorite spring-break story may seamlessly switch from one speaker to the other, finish each other’s sentences, speak in unison, or gesture simultaneously because they have told the story so many times. Relationship rituals take on more symbolic meaning than do relationship routines and may be variations on widely recognized events—such as birthdays, anniversaries, Passover, Christmas, or Thanksgiving—or highly individualized and original. Relational partners may personalize their traditions by eating mussels and playing Yahtzee on Christmas Eve or going hiking on their anniversary. Other rituals may be more unique to the relationship, such as celebrating a dog’s birthday or going to opening day at the amusement park. The following highly idiosyncratic ritual was reported by a participant in a research study:

I would check my husband’s belly button for fuzz on a daily basis at bedtime. It originated when I noticed some blanket fuzz in his belly button one day and thought it was funny…We both found it funny and teased often about the fuzz. If there wasn’t any fuzz for a few days my husband would put some in his belly button for me to find. It’s been happening for about 10 years now (Bruess & Pearson, 1997).

A couple may share a relationship routine of making dinner together every Saturday night.

Free Stock Photos – Cooking – public domain.

Whether the routines and rituals involve phone calls, eating certain foods, or digging for belly button fuzz, they all serve important roles in building relational cultures. However, as with storytelling, rituals and routines can be negative. For example, verbal and nonverbal patterns to berate or belittle your relational partner will not have healthy effects on a relational culture. Additionally, visiting your in-laws during the holidays loses its symbolic value when you dislike them and comply with the ritual because you feel like you have to. In this case, the ritual doesn’t enrich the relational culture, but it may reinforce norms or rules that have been created in the relationship.

Relationship rules and norms help with the daily function of the relationship. They help create structure and provide boundaries for interacting in the relationship and for interacting with larger social networks (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000). Relationship rules are explicitly communicated guidelines for what should and should not be done in certain contexts. A couple could create a rule to always confer with each other before letting their child spend the night somewhere else. If a mother lets her son sleep over at a friend’s house without consulting her partner, a more serious conflict could result. Relationship norms are similar to routines and rituals in that they develop naturally in a relationship and generally conform to or are adapted from what is expected and acceptable in the larger culture or society. For example, it may be a norm that you and your coworkers do not “talk shop” at your Friday happy-hour gathering. So when someone brings up work at the gathering, his coworkers may remind him that there’s no shop talk, and the consequences may not be that serious. In regards to topic of conversation, norms often guide expectations of what subjects are appropriate within various relationships. Do you talk to your boss about your personal finances? Do you talk to your father about your sexual activity? Do you tell your classmates about your medical history? In general, there are no rules that say you can’t discuss any of these topics with anyone you choose, but relational norms usually lead people to answer “no” to the questions above. Violating relationship norms and rules can negatively affect a relationship, but in general, rule violations can lead to more direct conflict, while norm violations can lead to awkward social interactions. Developing your interpersonal communication competence will help you assess your communication in relation to the many rules and norms you will encounter.

Key Takeaways

Getting integrated: Interpersonal communication occurs between two or more people whose lives are interdependent and mutually influence one another. These relationships occur in academic, professional, personal, and civic contexts, and improving our interpersonal communication competence can also improve our physical and psychological health, enhance our relationships, and make us more successful in our careers.

There are functional aspects of interpersonal communication.

We “get things done” in our relationships by communicating for instrumental goals such as getting someone to do something for us, requesting or presenting information, and asking for or giving support.
We maintain our relationships by communicating for relational goals such as putting your relational partner’s needs before your own, celebrating accomplishments, spending time together, and checking in.
We strategically project ourselves to be perceived in particular ways by communicating for self-presentation goals such as appearing competent or friendly.

There are cultural aspects of interpersonal communication.

We create relationship cultures based on the relationship schemata we develop through our interactions with our larger society and culture.
We engage in relationship storytelling to create a sense of stability in the face of change, to test our compatibility with potential relational partners, and to create a sense of solidarity and belonging in established relationships.
We create personal idioms such as nicknames that are unique to our particular relationship and are unfamiliar to outsiders to create cohesiveness and solidarity.
We establish relationship routines and rituals to help establish our relational culture and bring a sense of comfort and predictability to our relationships.
Getting integrated: In what ways might interpersonal communication competence vary among academic, professional, and civic contexts? What competence skills might be more or less important in one context than in another?
Recount a time when you had a DTR talk. At what stage in the relationship was the talk? What motivated you or the other person to initiate the talk? What was the result of the talk?
Pick an important relationship and describe its relationship culture. When the relationship started, what relationship schemata guided your expectations? Describe a relationship story that you tell with this person or about this person. What personal idioms do you use? What routines and rituals do you observe? What norms and rules do you follow?

Bell, R. A. and J. G. Healey, “Idiomatic Communication and Interpersonal Solidarity in Friends’ Relational Cultures,” Human Communication Research 18 (1992): 307–35.

Benigno, A., “Jersey Shore Glossary: This Dictionary of Terms Will Get You (Fist) Pumped for Season Two,” N.Y. Daily News , July 28, 2010, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-28/entertainment/27071281_1_jersey-shore-fist-pump-snooki .

Bruess, C. J. S. and Judy C. Pearson, “Interpersonal Rituals in Marriage and Adult Friendship,” Communication Monographs 64, no. 1 (1997): 35.

Burleson, B. R., Sandra Metts, and Michael W. Kirch, “Communication in Close Relationships,” in Close Relationships: A Sourcebook , eds. Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 247.

Candland, D. K., Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Fisher, W. R., “Narration as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51, no. 1 (1985): 1–22.

Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1959).

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 2.

Jones Jr., R. G., “Drag Queens, Drama Queens, and Friends: Drama and Performance as a Solidarity Building Function in a Gay Male Friendship Circle,” Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research 6, no. 1 (2007): 61–84.

Leary, M. R., “Toward a Conceptualization of Interpersonal Rejection,” in Interpersonal Rejection , ed. Mark R. Leary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–20.

National Association of Colleges and Employers, Job Outlook 2011 (2010): 25.

Shalev, S., “Solitary Confinement and Supermax Prisons: A Human Rights and Ethical Analysis,” Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 11, no. 2 (2011): 151.

Williams, K. D. and Lisa Zadro, “Ostracism: On Being Ignored, Excluded, and Rejected,” in Interpersonal Rejection , ed. Mark R. Leary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 21–54.

“About Image Consulting,” Association of Image Consultants International webpage, accessed June 3, 2011, http://www.aici.org/About_Image_Consulting/Image_Consulting.htm . ↵

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Social Media Use and Impact on Interpersonal Communication

Conference paper
First Online: 01 January 2015
Cite this conference paper

Yerika Jimenez 2 &
Patricia Morreale 3

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 529))

Included in the following conference series:

International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

38k Accesses

2 Citations

2 Altmetric

This research paper presents the findings of a research project that investigated how young adult interpersonal communications have changed since using social media. Specifically, the research focused on determining if using social media had a beneficial or an adverse effect on the development of interaction and communication skills of young adults. Results from interviews reveal a negative impact in young adult communications and social skills. In this paper young adult preferences in social media are also explored, to answer the question: Does social media usage affect the development of interaction and communication skills for young adults and set a basis for future adult communication behaviors?

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF

Weibo or Weixin? Gratifications for Using Different Social Media

Social Media Dependency: The Implications of Technological Communication Use Among University Students

Investigating the Usage Patterns and the Implications of Young Adults’ Social Media Usage in South Africa

Social media
Social interaction
Interpersonal communications
Young adults

1 Introduction

Human interaction has changed drastically in the last 20 years, not only due to the introduction of the Internet, but also from social media and online communities. These social media options and communities have grown from being simply used to communicate on a private network into a strong culture that almost all individuals are using to communicate with others all over the world. We will concentrate on the impact that social media has on human communication and interaction among young adults, primarily college students. In today’s society, powerful social media platforms such as Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (IG), and Pinterest have been the result of an evolution that is changing how humans communicate with each other. The big question we asked ourselves was how much has social media really impacted the way that humans communicate and interact with each other, and if so, how significant is the change of interpersonal interaction among young adults in the United States today?

The motivation behind this research has been personal experience with interaction and communication with friends and family; it had become difficult, sometimes even rare, to have a one-on-one conversation with them, without having them glancing at or interacting with their phone. Has social interaction changed since the introduction of advanced technology and primarily social media? In correlation with the research data collected in this study, it was concluded that many participants’ personal communication has decreased due social media influence encouraging them to have online conversations, as opposed to face-to-face, in-person conversations.

2 Related Work

The question of how social media affects social and human interaction in our society is being actively researched and studied. A literature review highlights the positive and negative aspects of social media interaction, as researchers battle to understand the current and future effects of social media interaction. A study done by Keith Oatley, an emeritus professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, suggests that the brain may interpret digital interaction in the same manner as in-person interaction, while others maintain that differences are growing between how we perceive one another online as opposed to in reality [ 1 ]. This means that young adults can interpret online communication as being real one-on-one communication because the brain will process that information as a reality. Another study revealed that online interaction helps with the ability to relate to others, tolerate differing viewpoints, and express thoughts and feeling in a healthy way [ 2 , 3 ]. Moreover a study executed by the National Institutes of Health found that youths with strong, positive face-to-face relationships may be those most frequently using social media as an additional venue to interact with their peers [ 4 ].

In contrast, research reveals that individuals with many friends may appear to be focusing too much on Facebook, making friends out of desperation rather than popularity, spending a great deal of time on their computer ostensibly trying to make connections in a computer-mediated environment where they feel more comfortable rather than in face-to-face social interaction [ 5 ]. Moreover, a study among college freshman revealed that social media prevents people from being social and networking in person [ 6 ].

3 Experimental Design

This research study was divided into two parts during the academic year 2013–2014. Part one, conducted during fall semester 2013, had the purpose of understanding how and why young adults use their mobile devices, as well as how the students describe and identify with their mobile devices. This was done by distributing an online survey to several Kean University student communities: various majors, fraternity and sorority groups, sports groups, etc. The data revealed that users primarily used their mobile devices for social media and entertainment purposes. The surveyed individuals indicated that they mainly accessed mobile apps like Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Instagram, to communicate, interact, and share many parts of their daily life with their friends and peers.

Based on the data collected during part one, a different approach and purpose was used for part two, with the goal being to understand how social media activities shape the communication skills of individuals and reflects their attitudes, attention, interests, and activities. Additionally, research included how young adult communication needs change through the use of different social media platforms, and if a pattern can be predicted from the users’ behavior on the social media platforms. Part two of this research was conducted by having 30 one-on-one interviews with young adults who are college students. During this interview key questions were asked in order to understand if there is a significant amount of interpersonal interaction between users and their peers. Interpersonal interaction is a communication process that involves the exchange of information, feelings and meaning by means of verbal or non-verbal messages. For the purposes of this paper, only the data collected during spring 2014 is presented.

4 Data Collection

Through interviews, accurate results of the interaction of young adults with social media were collected. These interviews involved 30 one-on-one conversations with Kean University students. Having one-on-one interviews with participants allowed for individual results, first responses from the participant, without permitting responses being skewed or influenced by other participants, such as might occur in group interviews. It also allows users to give truthful answers, in contrast to an online or paper survey, as they might have second thoughts about an answer and change it. The one-on-one interviews consisted of ten open-ended questions, which were aimed to answer, and ultimately determine, how social media interaction involuntarily influences, positively or negatively, an individual’s attitude, attention, interests, and social/personal activities. The largest motive behind the questions was to determine how individual communication skills, formally and informally, have changed from interacting with various social media platforms. The interviews, along with being recorded on paper, were also video and audio-recorded. The average time for each interview was between two to ten minutes. These interviews were held in quiet labs and during off-times, so that the responses could be given and recorded clearly and without distraction (Fig. 1 ). A total of 19 females and 11 males participated, with ages ranging from 19 to 28 years old.

Female participant during one-on-one interview

After conducting the interviews and analyzing the data collected, it was determined that the age when participants, both male and female, first began to use social media ranged between 9 to 17 years. It was found that, generally, males began to use social media around the age of 13, whereas females started around the age of 12. The average age for males starting to use social media is about 12.909 with a standard deviation of 2.343. For females, the average age is 12.263 with a standard deviation of 1.627. From this, we can determine that males generally begin to use social media around the age of 13, whereas females begin around the age of 12.

After determining the average age of when participants started using social media, it was necessary to find which social media platforms they had as a basis; meaning which social media platform they first used. MySpace was the first social media used by twenty-three participants, followed by Facebook with three users, and Mi Gente by only one user, with two participants not using social media at all. It was interesting to find that all of the participants who started using Myspace migrated to Facebook. The reasoning provided was that “everyone [they knew] started to use Facebook.” According to the participants, Facebook was “more interactive” and was “extremely easy to use.” The participants also stated that Myspace was becoming suitable for a younger user base, and it got boring because they needed to keep changing their profile backgrounds and modifying their top friends, which caused rifts or “popularity issues” between friends. After finding out which platform they started from, it was also essential to find out which platform they currently use. However, one platform that seemed to be used by all participants to keep up-to-date with their friends and acquaintances was Instagram, a picture and video-based social media platform. Another surprising finding was that many users did not use Pinterest at all, or had not even heard of the platform. After determining which social media platforms the users migrated to, it was essential to identify what caused the users to move from one platform to another. What are the merits of a certain platform that caused the users to migrate to it, and what are the drawbacks of another platform that caused users to migrate from it or simply not use it all?

4.1 Social Interaction Changes

For some participants social interaction had a chance for a positive outcome, while others viewed it in a more negative aspect. The participants were asked if their social interactions have changed since they were first exposed to social media (Table 1 ). One participant stated that “it is easier to just look at a social media page to see how friends and family are doing rather than have a one-on-one interaction.” As for people’s attitudes, they would rather comment or “like” a picture than stop and have a quick conversation. On the other hand, another participant felt that social media helped them when talking and expressing opinions on topics that they generally would not have discussed in person. Moreover, the participants are aware of the actions and thing that they are doing but continue to do it because they feel comfortable and did not desire to have one-on-one interactions with people.

The participants were also asked to explain how social media changed their communication and interactions during the years of using social media (Table 2 ). The data shows that participants interact less in person because they are relating more via online pictures and status. For other participants, it made them more cautious and even afraid of putting any personal information online because it might cause problems or rifts in their life. On the contrary, some participants stated that their communication and interaction is the same; however, they were able to see how it had changed for the people that are around them. A participant stated that “internet/social media is a power tool that allows people to be whatever they want and in a way it creates popularity, but once again they walk around acting like they do not know you and ‘like’ your pictures the next day.”

5 Discussion

The data illustrated in this paper shows how much the introduction and usage of social media has impacted the interaction and communication of young adults. The future of interaction and communication was also presented as a possibility, if the current trend continues with young adults and social media or online communities. This raises the notion of possibly not having any social, in-person interaction and having all communication or interaction online and virtually with all family and friends.

6 Conclusion

Referring back to the question asked during the introduction: how much has social media impacted the way we communicate and interact with each other? After reviewing all the findings, seeing the relationship individuals have with their mobile phones, and comparing social media platforms, it is clear that many young adults have an emotional attachment with their mobile device and want interaction that is quick and to the point, with minimal “in-person” contact. Many young adults prefer to use their mobile device to send a text message or interact via social media. This is due to their comfort level being higher while posting via social media applications, as opposed to in-person interaction. To successfully and accurately answer the question: yes, social media has had a very positive and negative effect on the way we communicate and interact with each other. However, how effective is this method of “virtual” communication and interaction in the real world?

Paul, A.: Your Brain on Fiction. The New York Times, 17 March 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscience-of-your-brain-on-fiction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . Accessed 26 April 2014

Burleson, B.R.: The experience and effects of emotional support: what the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Pers. Relat. 10 , 1–23 (2003)

Article Google Scholar

Hinduja, S., Patchin, J.: Personal information of adolescents on the internet: a quantitative content analysis of myspace. J. Adolesc. 31 , 125–146 (2007)

Hare, A.L., Mikami, A., Szwedo, Y., Allen, D., Evans, M.: Adolescent peer relationships and behavior problems predict young adults’ communication on social networking websites. Dev. Psychol. 46 , 46–56 (2010)

Orr, R.R., Simmering, M., Orr, E., Sisic, M., Ross, C.: The influence of shyness on the use of facebook in an undergraduate sample. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 12 , 337–340 (2007)

Tong, S.T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., Walther, J.B.: Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on facebook. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 13 , 531–549 (2008)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, 412 Newwell Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

Yerika Jimenez

Department of Computer Science, Kean University, 1000 Morris Ave, Union, NJ, 07083, USA

Patricia Morreale

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yerika Jimenez .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Constantine Stephanidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Jimenez, Y., Morreale, P. (2015). Social Media Use and Impact on Interpersonal Communication. In: Stephanidis, C. (eds) HCI International 2015 - Posters’ Extended Abstracts. HCI 2015. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 529. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21383-5_15

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21383-5_15

Published : 21 July 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-21382-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-21383-5

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Communication

iResearchNet

Custom Writing Services

Interpersonal communication.

Interpersonal communication concerns the study of social interaction between people. Interpersonal communication theory and research seeks to understand how individuals use verbal discourse and nonverbal actions, as well as written discourse, to achieve a variety of instrumental and communication goals such as informing, persuading, and providing emotional support to others. Although interpersonal communication has been traditionally conceived of as a process that occurs between people encountering each other face to face, increasingly social interaction is being accomplished through the use of such communication technologies as computers and mobile phones, thus adding a new dimension to this area of communication inquiry.

Research History

The study of interpersonal communication developed during the years following World War II and grew out of two distinct areas of social-psychological research that appeared during and after the war. One of these areas concerned the role communication plays in the exercise of persuasion and social influence, while the other area, known as group dynamics, focused on social interaction within groups. Group dynamics sought to illuminate how group interaction processes influence conformity to group norms, group cohesion, the exercise of social power and the decisions that groups make. During the 1960s most interpersonal communication research addressed the role that various source, message, channel, and receiver factors play in changing audience members’ attitudes and behavior; although studies of speech anxiety, communication apprehension, and group decision-making also appeared in the interpersonal communication literature of that era.

Most of the communication and persuasion research appearing during this time did not examine social influence in the context of ongoing social interaction; rather, experimental studies in which audience members were individually exposed to persuasive messages that systematically varied different source and message factors were used to investigate the effects of persuasive communication on recipients’ attitudes and opinions. As elegant as this experimental approach to the study of persuasion was, in that it allowed for the experimental control of extraneous factors, unfortunately it did not allow researchers to investigate the reciprocal influence processes that occur when people engage in faceto-face interaction. In social encounters, social influence is not a one-way street; individuals who enter such encounters hoping to influence their co-interlocutors instead may encounter resistance or find themselves being influenced by their partners.

Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, interpersonal communication research perspectives expanded beyond the communication and persuasion domain to include the role social interaction plays in the development, maintenance, and deterioration of personal relationships. Interpersonal communication and interpersonal attraction in romantic and friendship relationships began to become a focal point of study; at the same time interpersonal communication researchers became interested in the study of self-disclosure. This period was also marked by a significant increase in attention to the study of nonverbal communication, and during the latter part of the 1970s interpersonal communication research began to reflect a concern to understand the cognitive structure and processes that underlie social interaction with respect to both message production and message processing (Berger 2005). Deceptive communication was another research focus that emerged during this period. In the ensuing decades, each of these research areas has continued to attract considerable attention.

During the 1970s, communication researchers in general and the interpersonal communication researchers in particular expressed considerable frustration over the lack of original theories designed to explain various interpersonal communication phenomena. As a consequence, beginning in this decade, interpersonal communication scholars began to engage in dialogue about the nature of communication theory, and they increased their theory development efforts. Since that time, interpersonal communication researchers have proposed a variety of theories concerned with explaining such phenomena as relationship development, nonverbal communication, message production, interaction adaptation, and deceptive communication.

As the theoretical and research trends set in motion in the 1970s continued to play out during the 1980s, interpersonal communication researchers became increasingly interested in illuminating the communication strategies individuals use to achieve a wide variety of goals, such as acquiring information, gaining compliance, making requests, comforting others, and seeking affinity. In conjunction with this focus on the functions that social interaction serves in the strategic pursuit of such goals, some interpersonal communication researchers began to develop theories and models of message production for the purpose of explaining how such strategic interaction works. This theory development work continued through the 1990s and into the new millennium.

As a sub-field of the communication discipline, interpersonal communication can be divided into six unique but related areas of study, each representing a relatively coherent body of theory and research. These six areas are concerned with uncertainty, interpersonal adaptation, message production, relationship development, deceptive communication, and mediated social interaction. In addition to these theoretical domains, interpersonal communication researchers have addressed specific topics such as emotion and social interaction, although these specific topics are not as well developed as the six domains. Nevertheless, some of these specific topics will be considered as each of the six research areas is described below.

Uncertainty in Interpersonal Communication

Few would disagree with the proposition that when individuals engage in social interaction with each other, they cannot be completely certain of their conversational partners’ current emotional states, beliefs, attitudes, and future actions, even when their interaction partners are familiar and perhaps even well known to them. That is, it is impossible to predict accurately all of these internal states and potential future actions at any given point in time. Consequently, when individuals engage in social interaction they do so under conditions of more or less uncertainty, but uncertainty is probably never completely absent. In addition, because individuals harbor uncertainties about cointerlocutors, they must, of necessity, have uncertainties about how they should act toward their partners; consequently, individuals experience uncertainty with respect both to themselves and to others. These uncertainties are maximal when strangers meet, but uncertainties can also arise in close relationships of long duration (Planalp & Honeycutt 1985). Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese 1975; Berger & Gudykunst 1991) proposes that individuals must reduce their uncertainties to some degree in order to be able to fashion verbal discourse and actions that will allow them to achieve their interaction goals. The theory’s propositions describe relationships between verbal and nonverbal communication and information seeking, self-disclosure and interpersonal attraction.

Berger (1979) identified three general classes of strategies for reducing uncertainty. Passive strategies do not entail social interaction between parties; rather, they involve the unobtrusive observation of others for the purpose of acquiring information about them. Active strategies also do not involve face-to-face social interaction between information seekers and their targets. Acquiring information from third parties about a target person falls into this category. Finally, interactive strategies such as asking questions, disclosing information about one’s self, and relaxing the target may be used to acquire information when interaction occurs. These strategies vary with respect to their efficiency and social appropriateness.

For example, acquiring personal information from another by asking questions might be an efficient strategy, but it could become socially inappropriate if too many questions or excessively personal questions were to be asked. Conversely, relaxing the target person might be perceived to be highly appropriate socially but, at the same time, might be highly inefficient for acquiring specific pieces of information from the target. A person who is more comfortable might say more than one who is less so but still not reveal the desired information. Studies have also examined the strategies individuals use to resist revealing information about themselves to highly inquisitive co-interlocutors (Berger & Kellermann 1994). URT has been found to have some purchase in explaining social interaction in intercultural (Gudykunst 1995) and organizational (Kramer 2004) communication contexts. Moreover, some have argued that individuals not only harbor uncertainties about themselves and others as individuals, but also may experience uncertainty with respect to their relationship with each other.

Some researchers have argued that individuals may not necessarily be motivated to reduce their uncertainty when they anticipate experiencing negative outcomes by so doing. For example, individuals who have their blood tested for the presence of the HIV virus because they suspect that they may be HIV positive may choose not to obtain their test result, presumably because they are fearful of it. That is, they will maintain their uncertainty in the service of avoiding hearing bad news. Similarly, married people who suspect that their spouses are cheating on them may elect to avoid reducing their uncertainty in this regard in order to avoid projected negative consequences that might follow from this knowledge. According to this perspective, then, uncertainty is something to be managed rather than necessarily reduced. Although there are a number of examples of situations in which some people might avoid reducing their uncertainty, the degree to which these uncertainty reduction avoidance maneuvers portend optimal adaptation to the environment is open to question. In the long run, ignorance may not always be bliss (Berger 2005).

Interpersonal Adaptation

Students of social interaction have long recognized that when individuals converse, they show strong proclivities to reciprocate each other’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The norm of reciprocity, which states that in the conduct of social intercourse people are obligated to help and not harm those who help them, provides a potential explanation for the ubiquity of reciprocity in social interaction. However, behavioral reciprocity has been observed between very young infants and their caregivers, suggesting a biological basis for reciprocal behavior (Burgoon et al. 1995).

Evidence for the operation of the norm of reciprocity was found in early studies of self-disclosure published in the 1950s and 1960s. This manifestation of the norm was labeled the “dyadic effect.” When individuals disclose information about themselves at a particular intimacy level, their co-interlocutors are likely to disclose information about themselves at a similar intimacy level. Moreover, as individuals increase the intimacy of their self-disclosures, their co-interlocutors tend to increase the intimacy level of their self-disclosures (Burgoon et al. 1995). It is not that individuals reciprocate the same information about themselves; rather, individuals tend to match the intimacy level of their disclosures. In addition to reciprocity at the level of message content, early studies demonstrated reciprocity of nonverbal behaviors in interview situations. As interviewers purposively increased or decreased their speech rate or the number of pauses in their speech, interviewees were observed to respond by adjusting their speech or pause rate in the direction of the interviewers’ (Burgoon et al. 1995).

Although the forces for reciprocity in social interaction are both highly pervasive and particularly strong, there are conditions under which interacting individuals will show compensation in response to each other’s behaviors. Compensation occurs when a behavior displayed by one person is not matched in some way by another. For example, in the domain of nonverbal communication a smile by one person might be met with a frown by a conversational partner, or an attempt to begin a conversation by moving closer to an individual might be responded to with eye-gaze aversion, signaling an unwillingness to converse. In the smile–frown case, compensation occurs within the same nonverbal communication channel, facial expressions; in the second case, the compensatory behavior is expressed in a different channel than is the initiating behavior.

A number of alternative theories have been devised to illuminate the conditions under which reciprocity and compensation are likely to occur during social interactions, especially with respect to nonverbal behaviors. Although Expectancy Violations Theory, Arousal Labeling Theory, Discrepancy-Arousal Theory, and Cognitive Valence Theory differ in terms of their explanations for reciprocity/compensation, they share a common assumption that when expectations for nonverbal behavior are violated, individuals tend to experience arousal. For instance, when people try to converse at inappropriately close conversational distances, they are likely to create arousal in their co-interlocutors. Arousal Labeling and Discrepancy Arousal theories suggest that when the experience of this arousal is pleasant, reciprocity is likely to occur; however, when the arousal is experienced negatively, compensation is likely to follow.

Research comparing these theories has been inconclusive and has prompted the development of Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT) (Burgoon et al. 1995). This theory argues that when an individual’s interaction position matches a co-interlocutor’s behavior, reciprocity or matching is likely to occur, but when an individual’s interaction position is discrepant from the other’s behavior, compensation is likely to occur. Interaction position is determined by the individual’s basic drives and needs, their cognitive expectations concerning social norms and behavior, and their goals and preferences. Although IAT offers a potentially more comprehensive explanation of interaction adaptation than do the other theories, its scope is quite ambitious, thus making it difficult to evaluate.

Message Production

The notion that language is a tool or an instrument for attaining everyday goals has enjoyed long acceptance among students of language and communication. Given the uncontroversial nature of this proposition, it is but a small step to contend that social interaction, like language, is a tool or an instrument for goal achievement (Berger 2003; Dillard et al. 2002; Wilson & Sabee 2003). Consistent with this proposition, beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1990s, constructivist researchers endeavored to determine the characteristics of messages deemed to be effective for achieving a variety of goals, most of them concerned with persuasion; although, a parallel line of research concerned with the goal of providing emotional support also developed within this tradition (Burleson 2003).

A robust finding from this line of research is that when given the task of devising messages to achieve such goals, individuals with high levels of cognitive complexity tend to generate messages showing greater evidence of social perspective taking than do their less cognitively complex counterparts. Within this research perspective, cognitive complexity is indexed by the number of psychological constructs individuals typically used to construe other persons (cognitive differentiation) and the degree to which the constructs they use are abstract (construct abstractness). Greater numbers of highly abstract constructs contribute to higher cognitive complexity levels. Because highly differentiated individuals’ messages take into account their co-interlocutors’ goals, emotional states, and potential responses to their messages, their messages are, as a result, deemed to be potentially more effective than the more egocentric ones generated by their less cognitively complex counterparts.

Beginning in the 1980s, a more comprehensive and abstract message production theory labeled Action Assembly Theory (Greene 1997) was developed to explain how individuals produce actions and discourse, and during the same period theories featuring such knowledge structures as scripts, plans, and memory organization packets (MOPS) were devised (Berger 1997; Kellermann 1995). In the case of these latter theories, sometimes referred to as Goal-Plan-Action (GPA) theories (Dillard et al. 2002), scripts, plans, and MOPS are conceived of as hierarchically organized knowledge structures representing action sequences that will bring about the achievement of goals. Once goals are activated, these knowledge structures serve to guide actions toward their attainment. These knowledge structures vary with respect to their abstractness and level of detail, and they can be made more complex by including contingencies that anticipate points at which projected actions in them might fail. Individuals who plan ahead during conversations, anticipate their co-interlocutor’s future conversational moves, and develop plan contingencies to meet these future actions are more likely to attain their social interaction goals than are individuals who do not engage in such planning activity while they converse (Waldron 1997).

A potential shortcoming of GPA theories is that they do not provide a detailed account of how goals arise in the first place; i.e., they begin with the assumption that social actors have a goal or goals to pursue. However, there are at least two examples of attempts to formulate and test theoretical explanations for how goals arise during social interaction (Meyer 1997; Wilson & Sabee 2003). Because much of everyday social interaction is aimed at satisfying recurring goals, much of everyday conversational interaction is routine (Berger 2005). Nonetheless, important questions can be asked about the conditions under which specific goals are activated and the consequences that follow from the disruption of these routines once they are undertaken. Interference with the completion of these routines should provoke annoyance and other negative emotions because it prevents the efficient achievement of recurring goals; however, there may be circumstances under which the disruption of social interaction routines provides relief from boredom or from an undesirable situation such as a routine conflict with another person.

People sometimes imagine social interactions with others. These imagined interactions may occur before an encounter, as when employees imagine what they might say to their bosses, but imagined interactions can take place after a particular encounter is over. Under certain conditions, imagining what one might say to another person before an actual interaction with them takes place can reduce the amount of apprehension that the person who has imagined the interaction shows during the actual encounter. Moreover, imagining interactions may help those who imagine them cope with negative emotions they have experienced in their relationship with the person or persons with whom they imagine conversing (Honeycutt 2003). However, imagining interactions before they take place may have the effect of encouraging individuals to commit themselves prematurely to a particular plan for the actual interaction and, as a result, render them less inclined to recognize potential problems that arise during the actual conversation, and to consider contingent actions that might be undertaken to deal with these problems (Berger 2005).

Relationship Development

The idea that interpersonal communication plays a critical role in the development, maintenance, and deterioration of social and personal relationships is one that has gained widespread acceptance over the past 35 years. Although a great deal of research attention has been paid to the development of romantic relationships during this period, probably because college students, who are frequently used as research participants, are likely to be involved in such relationships, researchers have also investigated relationships between friends, spouses, and family members.

A central question researchers have sought to answer is why some relationships become closer over time while others grow distant and perhaps end. Social exchange theories have frequently been invoked to explain why relationship growth and deterioration occur (Roloff 1981). In general, these theories suggest that individuals experience both rewards for and costs of being in relationships with each other, and not only assess their own rewards and costs, but estimate their partners’ levels of rewards and costs. Rewards may be material (wealth) or emotional (emotional support), and costs may be similarly material (lack of money) or emotional (undesirable personality). Each individual puts these reward and cost estimates into ratio form (rewards/costs) and compares the two ratios (self: rewards/costs vs partner: rewards/costs).

Individuals will feel equity in their relationship to the degree that the reward/cost ratios match; however, if the self ’s ratio is less favorable than the partner’s, the individual will feel inequity and thus dissatisfaction with the relationship. Dissatisfaction arising from felt inequity is sometimes expressed verbally when people say, e.g., “I am putting more into this relationship than I am getting out of it.” In general, these theories suggest that favorable relative reward/cost ratios fuel relationship growth, whereas unfavorable ratios are associated with relationship deterioration. It is not the absolute levels of rewards and costs that determine equity but the degree to which the two ratios match. Individuals might perceive their partners to be receiving more rewards from their relationships than they are, but because their partners may be perceived to be incurring greater costs for being in the relationship, the fact that they are receiving greater rewards does not lead to feelings of inequity.

Some have argued that social exchange theories and other relationship development perspectives have made the processes of relationship development and deterioration appear to be much more continuous and linear than they actually are. These researchers contend that the development of relationships is fraught with dialectical tensions that may serve to pull individuals in opposite directions simultaneously (Baxter & Montgomery 1996; Montgomery & Baxter 1998). For example, individuals may at once feel interdependent and autonomous with respect to their partners, and because the tension between these polarities shifts over time, relationships are in a constant state of flux. There are a number of possible dialectics such as predictability–novelty, openness–closeness, and autonomy– connection; thus, these contradictions can interact with each other through time. Given the dialectical nature of personal relationships and their dynamic interplay, proponents of this perspective contend that the complete merger of relationship partners is not possible.

Although social exchange theories and the relational dialectics perspective provide explanations for the growth and deterioration of relationships, they do not centrally address the effects of messages exchanged between people. That is, in the case of social exchange theories, individual’s judgments about relative rewards and costs are presumed to be residues of verbal and nonverbal interaction; similarly, the dialectical contradictions that individuals report experiencing in their relationships ostensibly arise from communicative exchanges with relationship partners; however, actual message exchanges between partners are generally not examined.

Nevertheless, although not necessarily strongly motivated by theory, there has been considerable research interest in interpersonal conflict in general and marital conflict in particular, much of it based on direct observations of partners engaged in social interaction. Such studies have found that couples who display a demand–withdraw pattern of message exchanges when interacting with each other, such that one person makes a demand of the other and the other person responds by withdrawing, report lower levels of relational satisfaction than do couples who acknowledge and respond to each other’s demands in a conciliatory way. In addition, because emotional communication plays an important role in many different types of relationships, there is increasing interest in how the regulation of emotions affects relationship development.

Deceptive Communication

Many interpersonal communication researchers subscribe to the view that deception is an integral part of social interaction. So called “white lies” are commonplace in everyday social commerce. Some researchers have gone so far as to argue that deception is an important lubricant that enables the smooth operation of the social interaction machine. Many times these lies are told to help co-interlocutors save face when potentially embarrassing circumstances arise in social situations. For example, dinner guests might tell a host that the food they have just consumed was “wonderful” when, in fact, it was utterly horrible, and persons might tell acquaintances that new articles of clothing the acquaintances are wearing “look good,” when their true evaluation of the new clothing is highly negative. Deception by commission occurs when proffered information is at variance with the “true” state of affairs, as in the previous examples; however, deception may also occur by omission; i.e., individuals may intentionally withhold critical information so that others will draw erroneous inferences, as when a used car salesperson fails to reveal known mechanical defects present in a car to a prospective car buyer. The prospective buyer is left to infer that the car is mechanically reliable.

Although interpersonal communication researchers have expended considerable research effort on examining deceptive communication, there are relatively few theories of deceptive social interaction (Berger 2005; Miller & Stiff 1993). Nonetheless, there are at least two enduring questions concerning deceptive communication that have attracted considerable research attention over the years. One of these questions concerns the degree to which engaging in deception alters nonverbal behaviors; i.e., do truth tellers’ nonverbal behaviors differ systematically from those of individuals who are telling lies? The research germane to this question has focused on nonverbal behaviors because it is generally assumed that when people engage in deceptive communication, they can carefully monitor what they are saying but cannot necessarily control their nonverbal behaviors in ways that will make them appear to be telling the truth while they are lying.

Those employed in such fields as law enforcement and the military, as well as those who perform psychological counseling, have a great deal of interest in knowing when individuals are providing truthful and deceitful answers to their questions. In general, research findings suggest that no one nonverbal behavior – e.g., eye-gaze aversion, excessive leg movements, fast or slow speech rate, or changes in body posture – can be used as an indicator of deceptive communication across all individuals. Specific behaviors may be diagnostic of deceptive communication in specific individuals; however, no universal nonverbal indicator of deceptive communication has yet been identified.

Another enduring question investigated by interpersonal communication researchers is the degree to which individuals are skilled at detecting deception as they interact with others. In this case research has generally shown that most individuals are not very adept at detecting deception, even those whose professions frequently require them to ascertain whether people are lying or telling the truth, e.g., judges, counselors, and law enforcement personnel. One explanation for the apparent inability of most individuals to detect deception is the pervasiveness of the “truth bias.” The truth bias arises from the fact that in the conduct of everyday interpersonal communication, individuals must routinely assume that their conversational partners are telling the truth.

For example, when one friend tells another, “I went to the movies alone last night,” under most conditions it would be quite odd for the friend to reply, “Can you provide me with evidence to support that assertion?” Individuals involved in social interactions must assume that others’ utterances are truthful; after all, requiring co-interlocutors to provide evidence for the truthfulness of every statement they make in most conversations would make even mundane social interaction a torturous activity. Consequently, because individuals routinely assume others are telling the truth, it is difficult for them to detect deceit when it is being perpetrated. There is some evidence that deception detection accuracy can be improved with practice, but these improvements appear to be confined to those specific individuals who are observed on repeated occasions; there is little evidence of generalized improvement beyond those individuals who are observed.

Mediated Social Interaction

Increasingly, social interaction is being accomplished through such communication technologies as computers with email and chat-room capabilities and mobile phones with text messaging and other communication features. Teleconferencing has become a commonplace in business communication. As the use of these technologies has become progressively more widespread, there has been a concomitant increase in research aimed at understanding their potential individual and social effects. However, technologically mediated social interaction is hardly a new phenomenon, having been possible on a wide scale since the advent of the landline telephone.

As was the case after traditional mass media such as film, radio, and television were introduced, research has investigated the potential deleterious effects of Internet use, such as Internet addiction and increased social isolation and loneliness, although evidence for the latter association is both scant and equivocal (Berger 2005). An inherent difficulty in examining such effects is establishing causal directions of influence: Do high levels of Internet use induce people to feel socially isolated and lonely, or do people who are already socially isolated and lonely, for reasons other than Internet use, gravitate to the Internet to help them alleviate or cope with these unpleasant feelings? Do people with “addictive personalities” simply find Internet use to be another activity to which to become addicted, or does use of the Internet itself induce addictive behavior? Yet another, and perhaps more realistic, possibility in each of these examples is that both causal directions occur and interact with each other in a complex, reciprocal fashion.

Some researchers have observed that when individuals engage in anonymous computer-mediated communication (CMC), as they might in an Internet chat room or on email, they are more likely to act in ways that they would not if they were interacting with others face to face (FtF) or if their identities were known to others in the CMC context. Researchers have postulated both positive and negative possibilities in this regard. On the positive side, anonymous individuals communicating with others by CMC might assume new identities, personalities, or both that could help them cope with personal problems. For example, highly introverted and shy people who wish to overcome their social inhibitions might “try on” a highly extraverted and outgoing persona whilst engaging in CMC. The effect of this experimentation might be to move such individuals in the desired direction of becoming less shy and introverted. However, on the negative side, others have noted that this same cloak of anonymity may serve to embolden individuals to insult and attack others or to “flame” them, behaviors they would not normally display in most FtF interactions or in CMC if their identities were known to their co-interlocutors.

Just as the advent of television prompted both considerable speculation and research aimed at comparing the then-new medium’s potential effects, especially with respect to its visual channel, with those of older media such as radio, so too the appearance of CMC has precipitated considerable research aimed at determining how CMC and FtF interaction differ with respect to various outcomes associated with their use (Walther & Parks 2002). Because text-based CMC, as currently used in electronic mail (email), news groups, and chat rooms, filters out many nonverbal cues typically available to people engaged in FtF interactions, it is presumed, e.g., that communication via text-based CMC is more task focused than is FtF communication. Moreover, while relatively cue-deprived, text-based CMC venues may be quite useful for initially encountering and screening potential friends and romantic partners, they apparently do not afford sufficient information for developing close relationships. Individuals who initially meet in the text-based CMC world usually elect to communicate with each other through other channels, e.g., phone and FtF encounters.

These alternative communication channels afford their users potentially more rich and comprehensive samples of each other’s behavior. Although the ability to send pictures and live video in the CMC context may overcome some of this cue loss in the visual realm, there are certain nonverbal communication channels such as touch, pheromones, body temperature, and smell that are at once both highly significant in most close romantic relationships and currently difficult or impossible to instantiate in CMC. The unavailability of these channels in current, commonly used incarnations of CMC raises questions about this medium’s ability to help sustain close, romantic relationships over long distances.

Because text-based CMC may serve to filter out personal information that might be used to understand people as individuals rather than as group members, some researchers have suggested that when groups use CMC to communicate with each other, the lack of individuating information about group members may foster stronger ingroup identity. Increased ingroup loyalty may serve to “deindividuate” people to the point where they are willing to stereotype outgroup members and behave negatively toward them. Although research has supported this possibility (Postmes et al. 2000), some have observed that these findings are limited to the domain of group-based CMC and may not apply in situations in which people are using CMC to interact with others on an individual basis (Walther & Parks 2002). Beyond the realm of CMC, under the aegis of human–computer interaction (HCI), considerable research evidence has been adduced to support the idea that people tend to treat computers and other communication technologies as if they are human agents, even when users know that they are interacting with a machine (Reeves & Nass 1996). Apparently, technology users cannot help imputing human-like qualities to the communication technologies they encounter in their everyday lives.

Given the rapid rate at which new communication technologies that enable mediated social interaction between people are being made widely available to the public, understanding how the use of these technologies affects communication in these modes and how prolonged use of the technologies may alter the nature of FtF interaction represents a challenge to communication researchers.

Other Research Areas

The six areas just considered do not exhaust the entire domain of interpersonal communication research. In addition to these theoretically defined areas are specific concepts in which interpersonal communication researchers have had an enduring interest. A few of the more important of these are now considered.

Everyday experience suggests that some individuals are consistently better able than others to achieve their goals during their social interactions. Some people appear to be able to induce others to like them and others seem to be very effective at persuading others and getting their way. The skills associated with success in these and other social interaction domains can be subsumed under the term communication competence. Much has been written about the communication competence concept, but there remains considerable ambiguity concerning its meaning; moreover, there has yet to be a theory that elaborates the concept. Some have suggested that communication competence might profitably be viewed as a theoretical term or domain of study rather than a single theoretical concept (Wilson & Sabee 2003).

There appears to be some agreement that communication competence refers to the degree to which individuals are able to reach their goals (effectiveness) and the extent to which goal achievement is accomplished in an appropriate manner (social appropriateness). In addition, some have suggested that efficiency may be another component of competence; i.e., how quickly individuals are able to achieve their goals. Another point of convergence is that communication competence is not a generalized skill but is specific to different kinds of communication goals and situations. Thus, a parent might be very persuasive when conducting high-level business negotiations on the job but, at the same time, be quite ineffective at inducing a resistant son or daughter to finish his or her homework. Similarly, an individual might be very effective at offering social support and comfort to others but very ineffective at gaining compliance from others. Although most interpersonal communication researchers acknowledge that communication competence is goaland situation-specific, as yet there is no typology of goals and situations that enables us to determine specific skill sets that are associated with various classes of goals and situations. This typology development task is one in need of attention.

As noted previously, much of everyday social interaction is organized around recurring goals that arise in the course of everyday living. The routines associated with everyday family and work interactions, and with daily transactions in business and commerce, encourage the development of communication routines in order to reach these recurring goals effectively and efficiently. If people had to plan consciously how to reach each of these recurring goals every day, the pace of social life would slow to a crawl. Instead, communication is routinized and can be enacted automatically when the occasion arises. Routinization of language use is pervasive; it has been estimated that up to 70 percent of adult language is formulaic (Berger 2005). The notion of communication routines may be related in some ways to communication competence. Competent communicators may be those who, in a given situation, have rapid access to communication routines that generally eventuate in goal achievement. Of course, the relationship between the availability of communication routines and communication competence rests on the assumption that the routines accessed are both effective and socially appropriate. A given situation may be nonroutine and require conscious planning effort; thus, the discerning communicator must be able to differentiate between those social situations that are routine and those that are not. This requirement for astute social discernment suggests that competent communicative action involves more than the production of effective messages. Accurate perception of others’ circumstances, moods, and emotional states is a vital prerequisite to competent social conduct.

References:

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 122 –144.
Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berger, C. R. (2003). Message production skill in social interaction. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 257–289.
Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415 – 447.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
Berger, C. R., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Uncertainty and communication. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (eds.), Progress in communication sciences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 21– 66.
Berger, C. R., & Kellermann, K. (1994). Acquiring social information. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–31.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 551–594.
Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002). Interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 425 – 474.
Greene, J. O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J. O. Greene (ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 151–170.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In R. L. Wiseman (ed.), Intercultural communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 8 – 58.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions: Daydreaming about communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Kellermann, K. (1995). The conversation MOP: A model of patterned and pliable behavior. In D. E. Hewes (ed.), The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 181– 221.
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Managing uncertainty in organizational communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals. In J. O. Greene (ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–90.
Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Montomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (eds.) (1998). Dialectical approaches to the study of relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593 – 604.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., & Reicher, S. D. (eds.) (2000). SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation of groups. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Waldron, V. R. (1997). Toward a theory of interactive conversational planning. In J. O. Greene (ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 195 – 220.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 529 – 563.
Wilson, S. R., & Sabee, C. M. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3 –50.

My UW-System
Student Life
Schools & Colleges
Centers & Institutes
Leadership Team
For Faculty and Staff
For Researchers
Request Info
Give to UWM

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

College of letters & science communication.

Powerful Ideas. Proven Results.

Interpersonal Communication Research

Interpersonal Communication examines interactions with others. Interpersonal Communication is fundamental to managing romantic relationships, friendships, and superior/subordinate relationships. Conflict mediation and the study of social influence are central to this specialty. Intercultural Communication is another area within this specialty, which examines communication relationships across cultures and nations and among diverse groups within a single culture.

Lisa Bradford
Tae-Seop Lim
Anjana Mudambi
Kim Omachinski
Erin Ruppel
Erin Sahlstein Parcell

Undergraduate Courses

Commun 101 – Introduction to Interpersonal Communication
Commun 301 – Interpersonal Communication Processes
Commun 310 – Communication in Organizations
Commun 320 – Nonverbal Communication
Commun 323 – Communication in Groups and Teams
Commun 350 – Intercultural Communication
Commun 363 – Communication in Human Conflict
Commun 365 – Negotiation Skills Workshop
Commun 381 – Health Communication
Commun 401 – Communication in Marital and Family Relationships
Commun 402 – Gender and Communication
Commun 450 – Cross-Cultural Communication
Commun 451 – Global 451: Access, Security, and Intercultural Context
Commun 464 – Theory and Practice of Persuasion
Commun 481 – Interpersonal Issues in Health Communication
Commun 550 – International and Global Communication
Commun 665 – Introduction to Mediation
Commun 675 – Communication in International Mediation and Peace-Building

Graduate Courses

Commun 700 – Quantitative Research in Communication
Commun 702 – Qualitative Research in Communication
Commun 750 – Theory and Research in Intercultural Communication
Commun 762 – Argumentation Theory
Commun 801 – Seminar in Interpersonal Communication
Commun 802 – Marital and Family Communication
Commun 803 – Gender and Communication
Commun 804 – Communication and Sexuality
Commun 806 – Understudied Close Relationships
Commun 807- Dark Side of Close Relationships
Commun 823 – Seminar in Small Group Communication
Commun 830 – Negotiation
Commun 837 – Instructional Communication in the College Classroom
Commun 850 – Seminar in Intercultural Communication
Commun 857 – Application of Intercultural Communication
Commun 860 – Seminar: Issues in Communication
Commun 864 – Communication and Social Influence
Commun 865 – Theory and Practice of Mediation
Commun 902 – Advanced Qualitative Methods (Interviewing)
Commun 965 – Discourses of Conflict
Commun 971 – Meta-Analysis: Practice and Application
Commun 972 – Advanced Methods in Communication Research

Graduate Certificate in Mediation and Negotiation

Apply Visit Give | Alumni Parents Offices TCNJ Today Three Bar Menu

Interpersonal & Strategic Communication Students at COSA

Ana taborda-tobon and liam ojeda presented their work at the 2024 celebration of student achievement here at tcnj., college-wide, our students shared projects, research findings, films, and more. join us in congratulating them for outstanding works..

TCNJ Today || Parents || Alumni

Campus Life

A-Z | Directory | Map | Offices

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram YouTube

QAnon casualties: Conspiracy theory’s devastating impact highlighted in new research

R ecent research provides insight into how belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory can strain interpersonal relationships. The qualitative study, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , reveals how followers’ deep entrenchment in QAnon can alienate their loved ones, leading to reduced communication and often the breakdown of relationships.

QAnon emerged in late 2017 and quickly gained attention for its extensive, if not outlandish, set of beliefs. Central to QAnon is the notion that a secretive government insider known as “Q” is revealing vital secrets about a supposed global cabal of satanic pedophiles that includes prominent liberal figures and that former President Donald Trump is waging a clandestine war against these forces.

The belief system not only demonizes perceived enemies but also encourages followers to decipher cryptic online postings to unveil supposed truths. This shared mission fosters a strong sense of community among followers, who use slogans like “Where we go one, we go all” to promote unity and resilience against opposing views.

The new study was motivated by the surprising prevalence of QAnon beliefs and their potential to strain interpersonal relationships, as evidenced by anecdotal reports and growing membership in online support groups like /r/QAnonCasualties. Given the radical and polarizing nature of QAnon, the researchers aimed to gain a deeper understanding of how these beliefs impact relationships.

“I have been a long-time reader of the r/QAnonCasualties subreddit. I found it both fascinating and heartbreaking to read the stories people shared there,” explained study author Lauren Mastroni of the University of Derby. “When I started my master’s degree I knew I wanted to write a paper on QAnon’s impact on relationships. Then, when I started doing background research I was surprised to find that there was a dearth of research on the topic, which made me even more motivated to do this study.”

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 participants from the r/QAnonCasualties subreddit, which included 10 females, four males, and one nonbinary individual, aged between 21 to 54 years from five different countries (the United States, Australia, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands).

Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed accounts of how their loved one’s belief in QAnon affected their personal relationships. The questions covered topics such as changes in the relationship dynamic, emotional responses to their loved one’s beliefs, and strategies employed to manage or resolve conflicts arising from these beliefs. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

The analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted using thematic analysis, a method that involves identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns or themes within qualitative data. This approach was inductive, meaning the themes were strongly linked to the data itself without trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding frame.

The researchers identified four primary themes that encapsulate the effects of QAnon on relationships: Malignant Q, Distance, Conflict, and Attempts at Healing.

Malignant Q was a theme that described the transformation of participants’ loved ones into individuals with radical and extremist beliefs. Participants reported a profound change in the behavior and ideology of their QAnon-affiliated loved ones, noting an increase in anger, paranoia, and intolerance. This radicalization often led to expressions of xenophobic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic sentiments, which participants found shocking and deeply disturbing.

“It’s mindblowing to hear what she says and really believes,” one participant remarked.

Loved ones were perceived as becoming consumed by the conspiracy, affecting their personality and worsening their social interactions. This theme highlighted the deep emotional impact on participants, who struggled with the realization that someone they cared about had adopted such extreme views.

Distance emerged as another significant theme, illustrating how QAnon beliefs led to both emotional and physical separation between participants and their loved ones. Communication breakdown was common, with participants often choosing to avoid conversations to escape conflicts or feeling unable to engage in meaningful dialogue due to the pervasive nature of QAnon rhetoric. The strain was exacerbated by a sense of loss over the closeness they once shared, with many relationships becoming superficial or strained to the point of minimal contact.

The theme of Conflict encapsulated the direct confrontations and disagreements sparked by the entrenched QAnon beliefs. Participants described frequent arguments that were not only stressful but often fruitless, leading to cycles of defense and accusation.

Loved ones entrenched in QAnon displayed extreme defensiveness when faced with opposing views, rejecting any information that contradicted their beliefs. This defensiveness was often accompanied by a dismissal of credible sources and an adherence to conspiracy narratives, making rational discussion nearly impossible and emotionally taxing for participants.

Attempts at Healing reflected the efforts made by participants to salvage their relationships. Despite the challenges, many held a strong desire to understand and reconnect with their loved ones. Strategies varied from engaging in deep conversations to trying to debunk QAnon claims gently, or setting boundaries about discussion topics.

However, the effectiveness of these strategies was mixed, with some participants finding temporary success in avoiding sensitive topics, while others ultimately resigned to the deterioration or end of the relationship. As one participant explained: “QAnon is like drug addiction, and, you know the whole cliche, the first step is them admitting they have a problem and then you can do the deprogramming and all that. But until they recognize they need help you can’t do a damn thing.”

Overall, the study’s findings highlighted the pervasive and often destructive impact of QAnon on personal relationships. The conspiracy theory not only influenced the believers’ perceptions and behaviors but also had profound emotional and relational consequences for those close to them.

“While additional quantitative research is necessary to determine the scale of QAnon’s impact on relationships, this study has highlighted how deeply QAnon belief can harm relationships,” Mastroni told PsyPost. “Participants found that their QAnon-believing loved ones often act on their beliefs in ways that damage their relationships, either by proselytizing, arguing, saying things that aren’t grounded in reality, or spouting increasingly hateful rhetoric.”

“Participants were highly motivated to understand their loved ones and tried many different strategies to heal their relationships, with varying degrees of success. I believe that QAnon is unprecedented in its impact on relationships compared to other, more benign (for lack of a better term) conspiracy beliefs and that further research into possible interventions to repair these damaged relationships is badly needed.”

Many participants reported being blindsided because their loved ones’ embrace of QAnon emerged without a clear link to their prior political stances.

“I was surprised that roughly half of participants said that their loved one was either more left-wing, less political, or apolitical before adopting QAnon beliefs,” Mastroni explained. “I thought that for most, their loved ones’ beliefs would have been a natural progression or continuation of previously-held beliefs, but that wasn’t the case for many participants. The fact that some participants’ loved ones started believing in QAnon seemingly out of nowhere certainly added to the shock these participants felt at their loved ones’ radicalization.”

While the study provides valuable insights, it is based on a small sample drawn from a single online community, possibly limiting the scope. Further research could expand on this by quantitatively measuring the prevalence of QAnon-related relationship issues or comparing its impact to other conspiracy beliefs.

“This is a qualitative study and therefore not generalizable,” Mastroni noted. “While this study aimed to highlight the existence of this phenomenon and explore QAnon’s impact on close relationships, more quantitative research is needed to measure the scale of the issue. I would like to see (and possibly conduct) further research into what interventions may be effective for repairing relationships damaged by QAnon.”

The study, “ “I one-hundred thousand percent blame it on QAnon”: The impact of QAnon belief on interpersonal relationships ,” was authored by Lauren Mastroni and Robyn Mooney.

Man wearing a QAnon shirt during the Million MAGA March in November 2020. (

IMAGES

Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal Communications Essay Examples
Case Study on Interpersonal Communication With Questions and Answers
(PDF) The Role of Interpersonal Communication Skills in Human Resource
What is Interpersonal Communication? Elements, Importance, Principles
Interpersonal Communication: Definition and Example

VIDEO

Interpersonal Communication Video
Interpersonal communication partner interview
Strategies for Effective Interpersonal Communication (Interview, Dialog, Conversation)
Introduction For Interpersonal Communication course
Interpersonal Communication Plan Assignment-Liberty University
Interpersonal Communication / What is Interpersonal Communication and Intrapersonal Communication

COMMENTS

(PDF) Interpersonal Communication
To do so, he offers a Model of Interpersonal Communication Studies as Metamodel inclusive of diverse research traditions in interpersonal communication studies including dominant areas (e.g ...
Communication, the Heart of a Relationship: Examining Capitalization
Future research could compare the different phases of relationships and communication behaviors between dating and married couples to understand these results more comprehensively. Despite these rationales, this study suggests a recognition that passive-destructiveness is an unfavorable act to Malaysian dating relationships, maybe more so than ...
Interpersonal Communication Across the Life Span
Interpersonal communication research that is concerned with life-span issues tends to prioritize communicative phenomena and bring the communication dynamics of our relational lives to the surface. Typically, this scholarship is organized around the various stages or phases of life. In other words, researchers concerned with interpersonal ...
Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships
About the Book. Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships helps readers examine their own one-on-one communicative interactions using a mindfulness lens. The writing team of Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, and Katherine Thweatt incorporates the latest communication theory and research to help students ...
Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage ...
In addition, research on interpersonal communication has shown that this form of communication entails establishing relationships among the participants . The results of this study support the link between selfie-style posts, two-way conversations, and communicator-audience relationships, as the individual scientists receive more engagement ...
Interpersonal Communication: Articles, Research, & Case Studies on
Read Articles about Interpersonal Communication - HBS Working Knowledge: The latest business management research and ideas from HBS faculty. ... New research on interpersonal communication from Harvard Business School faculty on issues including how to be a better listener, why dominating leaders kill teams, and strategies for making ...
Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an ...
A Ph.D. student wrote in the Retrospective Survey about the skills she learned from being a member of the team: "Leadership skills, communicating science to those in other fields, scientific ...
Introductory Guide to Research in Interpersonal Communication
Most often, interpersonal communication research is focused on romantic relationships, friendships, family relationships, relationships between colleagues, and doctor-patient relationships. However, given the definition outlined above, it is clear that interpersonal communication extends to a vast number of one-on-one interactions, both formal ...
Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice, 5th ed
This thoroughly revised and expanded fifth edition builds on this success to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the current research, theory and practice in this burgeoning field of study. The first two chapters introduce the reader to the nature of skilled interpersonal communication and review the main theoretical perspectives.
Self-esteem, Interpersonal Communication Competence, and Media and
Nevertheless, interpersonal communication competence is a necessity for maintaining quality intimate social relationships (Cacioppo et al., 2009; Knapp & Daly, 2002) and poor interpersonal communication competence results in feelings of a lack of intimacy, which results in loneliness (Doman & Le Roux, 2012; Knapp & Daly, 2002).
Does the Internet Bring People Closer Together or Further Apart? The
Interpersonal communication is a complex social process and is closely related to people's well-being. ... This paper clarifies the net effect of Internet usage on interpersonal communications. Research has shown that Internet technology has tremendously enriched communication channels and modes [14,15,16,17,87,89].
Interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research
Stanford : Institute for Communication Research. Google Scholar. Chaffee, S.H. (1972) "Longitudinal designs for communication research: cross-lagged correlations." Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, Carbondale, Illinois. ... The Merger of Mass and Interpersonal Communication via New Media: Inte... Go to citation Crossref ...
(PDF) Interpersonal Communication
Research results in interpersonal communication are communication between individuals or between groups. Interpersonal communication will be more effective if the atmosphere is equal.
6.1 Principles of Interpersonal Communication
This is because interpersonal communication is strategic, meaning we intentionally create messages to achieve certain goals that help us function in society and our relationships. ... "Idiomatic Communication and Interpersonal Solidarity in Friends' Relational Cultures," Human Communication Research 18 (1992): 307-35. Benigno, A ...
Interpersonal Media and Face-to-Face Communication: Relationship with
Although research suggests that interpersonal media vary in their association with global well-being (Burholt et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Teo et al., 2015), there have been consistent empirical findings that FtF interaction frequency explains more variance in global well-being than the frequency of mediated communication.
Digital or In-Person: The Relationship Between Mode of Interpersonal
Our research addresses these questions, in particular by investigating the effects of COVID-19-related social isolation on the mental health of older adults, with a specific focus on the frequency and mode of interpersonal communication (digital vs. in-person) with relatives and acquaintances.
Social Media Use and Impact on Interpersonal Communication
Abstract. This research paper presents the findings of a research project that investigated how young adult interpersonal communications have changed since using social media. Specifically, the research focused on determining if using social media had a beneficial or an adverse effect on the development of interaction and communication skills ...
The Current Status of Theory and Research in Interpersonal Communication
This paper details four alternative perspectives for conceptualizing the interpersonal communication process, emphasizing their implications for the theorist and researcher of interpersonal communication. The four perspectives discussed are the situational approach, the developmental approach, the law-governed approach, and the rule-governed ...
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal communication concerns the study of social interaction between people. Interpersonal communication theory and research seeks to understand how individuals use verbal discourse and nonverbal actions, as well as written discourse, to achieve a variety of instrumental and communication goals such as informing, persuading, and ...
Intercultural communication: Where we've been, where we're going
The purpose of this review is to critically analyze the state of intercultural communication literature. This review has three purposes. First, this review summarizes where the discipline has been, paying close attention to the discipline's history and some key areas of research. Second, this review discusses where the discipline is going ...
Interpersonal Communication Research
Interpersonal Communication Research. Interpersonal Communication examines interactions with others. Interpersonal Communication is fundamental to managing romantic relationships, friendships, and superior/subordinate relationships. Conflict mediation and the study of social influence are central to this specialty.
Interpersonal & Strategic Communication Students at COSA
Health Communication Specialization; Interpersonal and Strategic Communication Specialization; ... College-wide, our students shared projects, research findings, films, and more. Join us in congratulating them for outstanding works. Contact Information. Chair Susan Ryan 609-771-2256
QAnon casualties: Conspiracy theory's devastating impact ...
Recent research provides insight into how belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory can strain interpersonal relationships. The qualitative study, published in the Journal of Social and Personal ...

Interpersonal Communication: A Mindful Approach to Relationships

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Book

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media

Introduction

Literature review

Non-governmental organizations and individual scientists as communicators on social media

Account identification

Social media data collection and coding

Text analysis

Interview data collection and analysis

Survey data collection and analysis

Audience analysis

Three strategy filters

Platform conventions

Activity strategies

Interpersonal strategies

Audience engagement on communicator posts

Interpersonal communication strategies and social media engagement

Non-scientific audience engagement

Interpersonal communication afforded through Instagram

Implications

Limitations and future work

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

InterpersonalCommunication →

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Similar content being viewed by others

Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Interviews in the social sciences

Case study selection

Social network survey

Historical social network data

Retrospective team survey

Participant observations

An exemplary team

Scientific productivity network

Mentoring is integral in the collaborative network

Advice is integral in the collaborative network

Interpersonal relationships as driver for scientific productivity

Interactive and contributory expertise are intertwined

Training scientists to be experts

Interpersonal relationships increase scientific productivity

Fulfilling the land grant mission

Future research

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Introductory Guide to Research in Interpersonal Communication

Defining Interpersonal Communication

Common Relational Interpersonal Communication Theories and Constructs

Emerging Trends in Interpersonal Communication: The Dark Side

Additional Resources

Topics in Interpersonal Communication

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

6.1 Principles of Interpersonal Communication

Why Study Interpersonal Communication?

Functional Aspects of Interpersonal Communication

“Getting Real”

Cultural Aspects of Interpersonal Communication

Key Takeaways

Social Media Use and Impact on Interpersonal Communication

Similar content being viewed by others

Weibo or Weixin? Gratifications for Using Different Social Media

Social Media Dependency: The Implications of Technological Communication Use Among University Students

Investigating the Usage Patterns and the Implications of Young Adults’ Social Media Usage in South Africa