Theories of Interpersonal Communication

Why This Matters

Every conversation you have follows predictable patterns that communication scholars have mapped out for decades. These theories explain why you feel uncomfortable when someone stands too close, how relationships deepen over time, and what drives you to look someone up on social media before meeting them. For your exam, you'll need to identify these mechanisms and apply them to real-world scenarios.

Don't just memorize theory names and definitions. Instead, understand what problem each theory solves: some explain relationship development, others focus on meaning-making, and still others examine how we interpret behavior. When you can categorize theories by their core function, you'll handle any compare-and-contrast question or scenario-based prompt.

---

Relationship Development Theories

These theories answer a fundamental question: How do strangers become intimates? Each one identifies different mechanisms that drive relationships forward or hold them back.

Social Penetration Theory

Developed by Altman and Taylor, this theory argues that self-disclosure drives intimacy. Relationships develop as people reveal increasingly personal information in layers, moving from surface topics (where you're from, your major) to core vulnerabilities (fears, deep values). Think of it like peeling an onion: the outer layers are broad and shallow, while the inner layers are narrow and deeply personal.

• Reciprocity is essential. When one person shares something personal, the other needs to match that depth for the relationship to progress. One-sided disclosure stalls the connection.
• Depenetration explains relationship decline. The process can reverse, with partners withdrawing to more superficial layers during conflict or disengagement. Conversations that once covered deep topics shrink back to small talk.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Berger and Calabrese proposed that uncertainty motivates communication. In initial interactions, you're driven to gather information about strangers so you can predict their behavior and reduce your anxiety.

There are three information-seeking strategies:

1. Passive: observing someone from a distance without interacting (watching how they act at a party)
2. Active: asking other people about them (checking with a mutual friend)
3. Interactive: engaging them directly in conversation

High uncertainty inhibits liking. The more unpredictable someone seems, the less comfortable you feel. This explains why people research others before dates or job interviews.

Social Exchange Theory

This theory treats relationships like a cost-benefit analysis. You pursue connections where rewards (companionship, emotional support, fun) outweigh costs (time, emotional labor, stress).

Two key concepts make this theory work:

• Comparison level (CL) is your baseline of expectations, shaped by past relationships. If your current relationship's rewards meet or exceed your CL, you feel satisfied. If they fall below it, you feel disappointed.
• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) predicts commitment. You'll stay in a relationship only if it beats your perceived alternatives, even if it falls below your ideal CL. This is why people sometimes stay in unsatisfying relationships when they don't see better options.

---

Expectation and Interpretation Theories

These theories examine how we make sense of others' behavior. They explain the mental processes behind our reactions, including why the same action can feel flattering from one person and creepy from another.

Expectancy Violations Theory

Burgoon's theory starts from the idea that we hold implicit expectations for others' behavior based on social norms, relationship type, and context. You expect a certain amount of personal space from a stranger, a certain tone from a professor, a certain response time from a friend.

• Violations trigger evaluation. When someone behaves unexpectedly, you don't just react automatically. You assess the violator's reward valence, meaning how much you value that person overall (their attractiveness, status, ability to give you what you want).
• High-reward communicators get latitude. If someone you find attractive stands closer than expected, you're likely to interpret it positively. If someone you find off-putting does the same thing, you'll interpret it negatively. Same behavior, different reaction.

Attribution Theory

We constantly explain behavior. When someone acts in a noticeable way, you automatically assign a cause. These causes fall into two categories:

• Internal/dispositional: you attribute the behavior to their personality ("They're rude")
• External/situational: you attribute it to their circumstances ("They must be having a bad day")

Two common biases distort this process:

• Fundamental attribution error: you overattribute others' behavior to personality while excusing your own mistakes as situational. ("They're lazy" vs. "I was just tired.")
• Self-serving bias: you claim credit for successes (internal attribution) but blame failures on external factors. This creates conflict when other people see the situation differently.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Festinger's theory explains what happens when your beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors contradict each other. That contradiction creates psychological discomfort, and you're motivated to resolve it.

There are three main reduction strategies:

1. Change the belief to match the behavior (a smoker decides smoking isn't actually that dangerous)
2. Add new consonant information to justify the inconsistency ("I exercise, so smoking won't hurt me as much")
3. Minimize the importance of the conflict ("Life is short anyway")

Post-decision dissonance is especially common. After making a tough choice, you convince yourself you chose correctly by emphasizing the positives of your choice and downplaying the negatives.

---

Meaning-Making Theories

These theories focus on how meaning is constructed through interaction. Rather than treating communication as simple information transfer, they emphasize that reality itself is created through symbols, language, and coordinated conversation.

Symbolic Interactionism

Rooted in the work of George Herbert Mead, this theory argues that meaning emerges from interaction. Objects, words, and gestures have no inherent meaning. A raised fist could mean solidarity, anger, or victory depending on the social context in which it's used.

• Self-concept is socially constructed. Your identity develops through how others respond to you. Cooley's related concept of the "looking glass self" captures this: you see yourself through the mirror of social feedback.
• Symbols enable complex thought. Language allows you to imagine, plan, and take the perspective of others, making sophisticated communication possible.

Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)

Pearce and Cronen's theory proposes that communication creates social reality. You don't just exchange information; you actively construct the situations you're in through your conversational choices.

Meaning is shaped by multiple hierarchical levels:

• Content: the literal words being said
• Speech acts: what the words are doing (promising, threatening, joking)
• Episodes: what's happening right now (an argument, a job interview)
• Relationships: who you are to each other
• Life scripts: broader cultural narratives that frame everything

A key insight of CMM is that coordination doesn't require agreement. Two people can interact smoothly while holding completely different interpretations of what's happening. You might think a conversation is casual catching-up while the other person thinks it's a reconciliation.

---

Adaptation and Context Theories

These theories examine how we adjust communication based on who we're talking to and where. Effective communication isn't one-size-fits-all. You constantly modify your approach based on social dynamics and the communication channel you're using.

Communication Accommodation Theory

Giles's theory identifies two core strategies:

• Convergence builds connection. You adapt your speech patterns, accent, vocabulary, and nonverbal behavior to match your conversation partner, signaling affiliation and seeking approval. Think of how you might speak more formally around a professor or pick up slang from a new friend group.
• Divergence asserts identity. Sometimes you emphasize differences to maintain distinctiveness or express disapproval, especially when group identity feels threatened. A person might lean harder into their regional accent when they feel it's being looked down on.

One important caution: over-accommodation backfires. Excessive adjustment, like speaking loudly and slowly to an elderly person who hears perfectly fine, comes across as patronizing and damages rapport rather than building it.

Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT)

Walther's theory challenges the assumption that online relationships are inherently shallower than face-to-face ones. The central claim is that online relationships can match offline depth, just through different means.

• Verbal cues replace nonverbal ones. In text-based communication, you use timing, emoji, word choice, and message length to convey what facial expressions and tone of voice would show in person.
• Time is the key variable. Online relationships develop more slowly because the rate of information exchange is lower. But given enough time, they can reach equivalent levels of intimacy. This is why long-term online friendships can feel just as close as in-person ones.

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both Social Penetration Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory address early relationship stages. What specific mechanism does each one emphasize, and when would you apply each on an exam?

2. If someone receives a compliment from a stranger that feels creepy but the same compliment from a crush feels flattering, which theory best explains this difference, and what key concept is at work?

3. Compare Attribution Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory: How does each explain the mental processes involved when someone's behavior doesn't match your expectations?

4. A student adjusts their vocabulary when talking to professors versus friends. Which theory explains this, and what would we call it if they deliberately used more slang around professors to emphasize their student identity?

5. An exam question asks you to explain how meaningful relationships can develop through text messaging despite the absence of nonverbal cues. Which theory provides your framework, and what is its central argument about time?