The Situational Perspective

INGLÉS I - TRABAJO PRÁCTICO Nº 7 – COMUNICACIÓN SOCIAL
Contenidos teóricos a consultar:
LA REFERENCIA (pp. 103 a 104)
LOS PRONOMBRES (pp.27 a 28)
ADJETIVOS Y PRONOMBRES DEMOSTRATIVOS (p. 29)
ADJETIVOS Y PRONOMBRES INDEFINIDOS (pp. 30 a 36)
TEXTO: BURLESON, BRANT R. (2009). The Situational Perspective. Part 3:
Fundamental Processes. Chapter 9: The Nature of Interpersonal Communication. The
Handbook of Communication Science. Second Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. USA, p.
148.
1-Lea los datos bibliográficos y reflexione sobre el posible contenido del texto.
2-Enumere los párrafos.
3-Descubra el referente de lo subrayado.
4-Explique la forma de distinguir los tipos de comunicación de la perspectiva situacional.
5-¿Cuál es la definición de ‘comunicación interpersonal’ presentada en el texto?
6-¿Qué tipos de comunicación se mencionan en el segundo párrafo? ¿Qué involucran los
mismos?
7-¿A qué conduce la perspectiva situacional?
8-Elabore un listado con las críticas que ha recibido la perspectiva situacional.
The Situational Perspective
Miller (1990) contends that the situational perspective was the first substantive
perspective on the nature of interpersonal communication to emerge (probably in the late
1960s) and was the most influential viewpoint on interpersonal communication until at
least the mid-1970s. Although quite influential, the origins of the situational approach are
unclear.
The situational perspective distinguishes types of communication on the basis of features
of the communicative context, the most important of which include the number of
communicators, the physical proximity of those communicators, the availability of sensory
or communication channels (especially nonverbal ones), and the immediacy of feedback
received by communicators. Thus, interpersonal communication typically transpires
between two people engaged in face-to-face interactions who use both verbal and
nonverbal channels and have access to immediate feedback. Group, organizational, public,
and mass communication involve increasing numbers of persons and decreasing levels of
physical proximity, channel availability, and feedback immediacy. Dyadic communication
often serves as a synonym for interpersonal communication in this perspective. The
definition by Trenholm and Jensen (2008) presented at the outset of this paper embodies the
situational perspective on interpersonal communication.
The situational perspective leads to research on ways that contextual factors, especially
features of the physical setting, influence processes and outcomes of interactions. Research
questions consistent with the situational perspective include the following: Do dyads or
groups make better decisions? Does the greater availability of nonverbal cues in dyadic
interaction enhance communication fidelity? Does the use of emoticons in the
“impoverished” environment of computer-mediated communication increase communicator
satisfaction?
The situational perspective has been criticized extensively for highlighting less central
interaction features (numbers of actors and qualities of the physical setting) while
ignoring more substantive features, such as the relationship between the actors and the
content of their exchange. Miller (1978) maintains that “situational views of interpersonal
communication imply a static, nondevelopmental perspective rather than a dynamic,
developmental viewpoint of the process” (p.166). Thus, for example, the situational view
equates a face-to-face conversation between a postal clerk and a customer with a
conversation between a pair of longtime lovers. Perhaps even more problematic, the
situational view maintains that interaction between the postal clerk and a customer is more
“interpersonal” than a letter from a soldier to his family that details his deepest thoughts
and feelings. More generally, Miller contends that the situational perspective invites an
ahistorical concern with the number of people in a context, excludes consideration of other
features of the context (such as the quality of the relationship among participants) that may
more profoundly influence communication processes and outcomes, and leads to pursuing
trivial questions such as “how many people can participate in an interaction before it is no
longer ‘interpersonal’ ”.