Communication process. Communication What is the process of communication?

home » Story Communication process. Communication What is the process of communication?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Communication is a multidimensional and multifaceted process of forming, ensuring and implementing interpersonal and intergroup contact, which is determined by the need to organize the implementation and maintenance of joint activities of people.

Traditionally, there are three main aspects, three defining components of the communication process - communicative, interactive and perceptual components.

The communicative side of communication reflects that aspect of interpersonal contact that is expressed in the exchange of information between participants in communication.

The interactive side of communication involves the development of plans and programs for both tactical and strategic interaction that are common to the participants. The decisive factor here is the form of interaction itself (competition or cooperation), which leads in terms of content either to a smooth flow of neutral interaction, to conflict or to emotionally intense participation in conditions of joint activity.

The perceptual side of communication presupposes understanding and adequate perception, vision of the partner’s image, which is achieved through identification mechanisms - confrontation, causal attribution and reflection, that is, an understanding of how communication partners see the subject himself. Here, an important factor that dramatically increases the effectiveness of communication is its emotional side, the degree of empathic expression of evaluative perception.

1 . ABOUTcommunicatione as a process of interaction

Analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relations allows us to place the correct emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of domestic social psychology. The term communication itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term communication, but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely the theory of activity. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.

Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society, i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social ones are also embodied in the fabric of communication, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable.

Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another.

The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. In this case, it is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the importance of communication in the phylogenesis of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people. In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, i.e. changing them as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other social relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process appear in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals?

Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money here acts as the most important means of communication in the system of social relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby communicates personally with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena, a form of direct communication is given - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the second plane, but in real life this second plane of communication is always present. Although in itself it is a subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.

However, with any approach, the fundamental question is the connection between communication and activity. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, polemicizing with G. Tarde, he paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave rise to A.N. Leontyev notes that with this approach the individual appears more as a communicating than as a practically acting social being.

In contrast to this, domestic psychology accepts the idea of the unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity about it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities.

2. Structure of communication: communicative, perceptual and interactive side

2 .1 Communicativeside of communication

Speaking about communication in the narrow sense of the word, we first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange information (various ideas, ideas, interests, etc.). It follows that the entire communication process can be understood as a process of information exchange. Also from the above, one can take the next tempting step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory, which is done in a number of cases. However, this approach cannot be considered as methodologically correct, because it omits some of the most important characteristics of human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information. Not to mention the fact that with this approach, basically only one direction of the flow of information is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (the introduction of the concept of “feedback” does not change the essence of the matter), another significant omission arises here.

When considering human communication erroneously, only the formal side of the matter is recorded: how information is transmitted, while in the conditions of human communication information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.

Communication cannot be considered only as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, in contrast to the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is an active subject: mutual information they involve the establishment of joint activities. This means that each participant in the communicative process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object.

The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, i.e. analyze his motives, goals, attitudes. Schematically, communication can be depicted as an intersubjective process. But in this case, it must be assumed that in response to the information sent, new information will be received coming from the other partner.

Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple movement of information, but at least an active exchange of it. The main “add” in a specifically human exchange of information is that the significance of information plays a special role here for each participant in communication, because people do not just “exchange” meanings, but strive to develop a common meaning. This is only possible if the information is not just accepted, but also understood and meaningful. The essence of the communication process is not just mutual information, but joint comprehension of the subject.

The nature of the exchange of information between people is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves influencing the behavior of the partner, i.e. the sign changes the state of the participants in the communication process. The communicative influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is. This means that when exchanging information, the very type of relationship that has developed between the participants in communication changes.

Communicative influence as a result of information exchange is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.”

2 .2 Perceptual side of communication

As has already been established, in the process of communication there must be mutual understanding between the participants in this process. Mutual understanding itself can be interpreted here in different ways: either as an understanding of the goals, motives, and attitudes of the interaction partner, or as not only understanding, but also acceptance and sharing of these goals, motives, and attitudes. However, in both cases, the fact of how the communication partner is perceived is of great importance, in other words, the process of perception by one person of another acts as an obligatory component of communication and can conditionally be called the perceptual side of communication.

Quite often, the perception of a person by a person is referred to as “social perception”. This concept is not used very precisely in this case. The term “social perception” was first introduced by J. Bruner in 1947 during the development of the so-called new view of perception. Initially, social perception was understood as the social determination of perceptual processes. Later, researchers, in particular in social psychology, gave the concept a slightly different meaning: social perception began to be called the process of perceiving so-called social objects, which meant other people, social groups, large social communities. It is in this usage that the term has become established in the socio-psychological literature. Therefore, the perception of a person by a person belongs, of course, to the field of social perception, but does not exhaust it.

If we imagine the processes of social perception in full, we get a very complex and branched scheme, which includes various options not only for the object, but also for the subject of perception. When an individual is the subject of perception, he can perceive another individual belonging to “his” group; another individual belonging to an “out-group”; your own group; "foreign" group. This results in four different processes, each with its own specific characteristics.

The situation is even more complicated in the case when not only an individual, but also a group is interpreted as the subject of perception. Then one should also add to the compiled list of processes of social perception: the group’s perception of its own member; the group's perception of a representative of another group; the group's perception of itself, and finally, the group's perception as a whole of another group. Although this second series is not traditional, in different terminology almost each of the “cases” identified here is studied in social psychology. Not all of them are related to the problem of mutual understanding of communication partners.

In order to more accurately indicate what we are talking about, it is advisable to talk not about social perception in general, but about interpersonal perception, or interpersonal perception (or - as an option - about the perception of a person by a person). The perception of social objects has so many specific features that the very use of the word “perception” seems not entirely accurate here. In any case, a number of phenomena that take place during the formation of an idea about another person do not fit into the traditional description of the perceptual process, as it is given in general psychology. Therefore, in the socio-psychological literature the search for the most accurate concept to characterize the described process is still ongoing. The main goal of this search is to include some other cognitive processes in the process of perceiving another person more fully. In this case, many researchers prefer to turn to the French expression “connaissance d"autrui,” which means not so much “perception of another” as “knowledge of another.” In Russian literature, the expression “cognition” is also very often used as a synonym for “perception of another person.” another man".

This broader understanding of the term is due to the specific features of the perception of another person, which include the perception of not only the physical characteristics of the object, but also its behavioral characteristics, the formation of ideas about his intentions, thoughts, abilities, emotions, attitudes, etc.

Another approach to problems of perception, which has also been used in social psychological research on interpersonal perception, is associated with the school of so-called transactional psychology. Particularly emphasized here is the idea that the active participation of the subject of perception in the transaction involves taking into account the role of expectations, desires, intentions, and past experience of the subject as specific determinants of the perceptual situation, which seems especially important when knowledge of another person is considered as the basis not only for understanding the partner, but to establish coordinated actions with him, a special kind of relationship.

Since a person always enters into communication as a person, he is perceived by another person - a communication partner - also as a person. Based on the external side of behavior, we seem to read another person, decipher the meaning of his external data. The impressions that arise in this case play an important regulatory role in the communication process. Firstly, because by cognizing another, the cognizing individual himself is formed. Secondly, because the success of organizing coordinated actions with him depends on the degree of accuracy of reading another person.

The idea of another person is closely related to the level of one’s own self-awareness. This connection is twofold: on the one hand, the wealth of ideas about oneself determines the richness of ideas about another person, on the other hand, the more fully the other person is revealed (in more and deeper characteristics), the more complete the idea of oneself becomes . This question was once posed at a philosophical level by Marx when he wrote: A person first looks, as in a mirror, into another person. Only by treating the man Paul as one of his own kind does the man Peter begin to treat himself as a man. Essentially the same idea, at the level of psychological analysis, is found in L.S. Vygotsky: The personality becomes for itself what it is in itself, through what it represents for others. Mead also expressed a similar idea, introducing the image of a generalized other into his analysis of interaction. If we apply this reasoning to a specific situation of communication, then we can say that the idea of oneself through the idea of another is necessarily formed under the condition that this other is not given in the abstract, but within the framework of a fairly broad social activity that includes interaction with him. An individual relates himself to another not in general, but primarily by refracting this correlation in the development of joint decisions. In the course of knowing another person, several processes are simultaneously carried out: an emotional assessment of this other, and an attempt to understand the structure of his actions, and a strategy for changing his behavior based on this, and building a strategy for one’s own behavior.

However, at least two people are involved in these processes, and each of them is an active subject. Consequently, comparison of oneself with another is carried out, as it were, from two sides: each of the partners likens itself to the other. This means that when building an interaction strategy, everyone has to take into account not only the needs, motives, and attitudes of the other, but also how this other understands my needs, motives, and attitudes. All this leads to the fact that the analysis of awareness of oneself through another includes two sides: identification and reflection. Each of these concepts requires special discussion.

The term identification, which literally means identifying oneself with another, expresses the established empirical fact that one of the simplest ways of understanding another person is to liken oneself to him. This, of course, is not the only way, but in real interaction situations people often use this technique when an assumption about the partner’s internal state is based on an attempt to put themselves in his place. In this regard, identification acts as one of the mechanisms of cognition and understanding of another person. There are many experimental studies of the process of identification and elucidation of its role in the communication process. In particular, a close connection has been established between identification and another phenomenon that is similar in content - empathy. Descriptively, empathy is also defined as a special way of understanding another person. Only here we do not mean a rational understanding of the problems of another person, but rather the desire to respond emotionally to his problems.

Empathy is opposed to understanding in the strict sense of the word; the term is used in this case only metaphorically: empathy is affective understanding. Its emotional nature is manifested precisely in the fact that the situation of another person, a communication partner, is not so much thought through as felt. The mechanism of empathy is in certain respects similar to the mechanism of identification: both there and here there is the ability to put oneself in the place of another, to look at things from his point of view. However, seeing things from someone else's point of view does not necessarily mean identifying with that person. If I identify myself with someone, it means that I build my behavior the way this other person builds it. If I show empathy for him, I simply take into account his line of behavior (I treat it sympathetically), but I can build my own in a completely different way. In both cases, there will be taking into account the behavior of the other person, but the result of our joint actions will be different: it is one thing to understand a communication partner by taking his position and acting from it, another thing is to understand him by accepting him in calculating his point of view, even sympathizing with it, but acting in his own way.

The process of understanding each other is complicated by the phenomenon of reflection. In contrast to the philosophical use of the term, in social psychology reflection is understood as the awareness by the acting individual of how he is perceived by his communication partner. This is no longer just knowledge or understanding of the other, but knowledge of how the other understands me, a kind of double process of mirror reflections of each other, a deep, consistent mutual reflection, the content of which is the reproduction of the inner world of the interaction partner, and in this inner world in turn is reflected the inner world of the first researcher.

All of the above allows us to conclude that the extremely complex nature of the process of interpersonal perception makes it necessary to study with particular care the problem of the accuracy of human perception by a person.

2 .3 Interactive side of communication

The interactive side of communication is a conventional term denoting the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities.

The study of the problem of interaction has a long tradition in social psychology. It is intuitively easy to accept the undeniable connection that exists between communication and human interaction, but it is difficult to separate these concepts and thereby make experiments more precisely targeted. Some authors simply identify communication and interaction, interpreting both as communication in the narrow sense of the word (i.e., as an exchange of information), others consider the relationship between interaction and communication as the relationship between the form of a certain process and its content. Sometimes they prefer to talk about the connected, but still independent existence of communication as communication and interaction as interaction. Some of these discrepancies are generated by terminological difficulties, in particular by the fact that the concept of communication is used either in a narrow or in a broad sense of the word.

If we adhere to the scheme proposed when characterizing the structure of communication, i.e. to believe that communication in the broad sense of the word (as the reality of interpersonal and social relations) includes communication in the narrow sense of the word (as the exchange of information), then it is logical to allow such an interpretation of interaction when it appears as another - in comparison with the communicative - side of communication . Which one is different? This question still needs to be answered.

If the communicative process is born on the basis of some joint activity, then the exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably presupposes that the achieved mutual understanding is realized in new joint attempts to further develop the activity and organize it. The participation of many people in this activity at the same time means that everyone must make their own special contribution to it, which allows interaction to be interpreted as the organization of joint activity.

During it, it is extremely important for participants not only to exchange information, but also to organize an exchange of actions and plan common activities. With this planning, it is possible to regulate the actions of one individual by plans matured in the head of another, which makes the activity truly joint, when its carrier will no longer be an individual, but a group.

Thus, the question of what other side of communication is revealed by the concept of interaction can now be answered: the side that captures not only the exchange of information, but also the organization of joint actions that allow partners to implement some common activity for them. This solution to the issue excludes the separation of interaction from communication, but also excludes their identification: communication is organized in the course of joint activity, about it, and it is in this process that people need to exchange both information and the activity itself, i.e. develop forms and norms of joint actions.

The psychological content of the process of exchange of actions includes three points: a) taking into account the plans that have matured in the head of another, and comparing them with one’s own plans; b) analysis of the contributions of each participant in the interaction; c) understanding the degree of involvement in the interaction of each of the partners. But before characterizing each of the identified psychological processes, it is necessary to somehow describe the structure of interaction.

In the history of psychology, there have been several attempts to give such a description. For example, the so-called theory of action, or theory of social action, in which a description of the individual act of action was proposed in various versions, became widespread. Sociologists M. Weber, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons, and psychologists also addressed this idea. Everyone recorded some components of interaction: people, their connections, their impact on each other and, as a consequence, their changes. The task was always formulated as a search for the dominant factors motivating actions in interaction.

An example of how this idea was realized is the theory of T. Parsons, in which an attempt was made to outline a general categorical apparatus for describing the structure of social action. Social activity is based on interpersonal interactions consisting of single actions. A single action is some elementary act; systems of actions are subsequently formed from them. Each act is taken on its own, in isolation, from the point of view of an abstract scheme, the elements of which are: a) the actor; b) other (object to which the action is directed); c) norms (by which interaction is organized); d) values (which each participant accepts); d) the situation (in which the action is performed). The actor is motivated by the fact that his action is aimed at realizing his attitudes (needs). In relation to the other, the actor develops a system of orientation and expectations, which are determined both by the desire to achieve the goal and by taking into account the likely reactions of the other. Five pairs of such orientations can be identified, which provide a classification of possible types of interactions. It is assumed that with the help of these five pairs all types of human activity can be described.

This attempt was unsuccessful: the action diagram revealing its anatomy was so abstract that it had no significance for the empirical analysis of various types of actions. It also turned out to be untenable for experimental practice: on the basis of this theoretical scheme, a single study was conducted by the creator of the concept himself. Methodologically incorrect here was the principle itself - the identification of some abstract elements of the structure of individual action. With this approach, it is generally impossible to grasp the substantive side of actions, because it is determined by social activity as a whole. Therefore, it is more logical to start with the characteristics of social activity, and from there go to the structure of individual individual actions, i.e. in exactly the opposite direction. The direction proposed by Parsons inevitably leads to the loss of the social context, since in it the entire wealth of social activity (in other words, the entirety of social relations) is derived from the psychology of the individual. Another attempt to build a structure of interaction is related to the description of the stages of its development. In this case, interaction is divided not into elementary acts, but into the stages through which it passes. This approach was proposed, in particular, by the Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski. For Szczepanski, the central concept in describing social behavior is the concept of social connection. It can be presented as the sequential implementation of: a) spatial contact, b) mental contact (according to Szczepansky, this is mutual interest), c) social contact (here this is a joint activity), d) interaction (which is defined as the systematic, constant implementation of actions , aimed at causing an appropriate reaction on the part of the partner...), finally, e) social relations (mutually associated systems of actions). Although everything that has been said relates to the characteristics of a social connection, its type, such as interaction, is presented most fully. Arranging a series of steps preceding interaction is not too strict: spatial and mental contacts in this scheme act as prerequisites for an individual act of interaction, and therefore the scheme does not eliminate the errors of the previous attempt. But the inclusion of social contact, understood as joint activity, among the prerequisites for interaction largely changes the picture: if interaction arises as the implementation of joint activity, then the road to studying its substantive side remains open.

Finally, another approach to the structural description of interaction is presented today in transactional analysis, a direction that proposes to regulate the actions of interaction participants by regulating their positions, as well as taking into account the nature of situations and the style of interaction. From the point of view of transactional analysis, each participant in the interaction can, in principle, occupy one of three positions, which can be conventionally designated as Parent, Adult, Child. These positions are in no way necessarily connected with the corresponding social role: this is only a purely psychological description of a certain strategy in interaction (the position of the Child can be defined as the position I Want!, the position of the Parent as I Need!, the position of the Adult - the combination of I Want! and I Need!) . Interaction is effective when transactions are complementary in nature, i.e. coincide: if a partner addresses another as an Adult to an Adult, then he also responds from the same position. If one of the participants in the interaction addresses the other as an Adult, and the latter responds to him from the position of a Parent, then the interaction is disrupted and may stop altogether. In this case, the transactions are overlapping. The second indicator of effectiveness is an adequate understanding of the situation (as in the case of information exchange).

communication transactional unity perceptual

Conclusion

Communication is a complex, multifaceted process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the needs for joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a unified interaction strategy, perception and understanding of another person; as well as the interaction of subjects carried out by sign means, caused by the needs of joint activity and aimed at a significant change in the state, behavior and personal and semantic formations of the partner.

In its most general form, communication acts as a form of life activity. The social meaning of communication is that it acts as a means of transmitting forms of culture and social experience.

The specificity of communication is determined by the fact that in its process the subjective world of one person is revealed to another. In communication, a person self-determines and presents himself, revealing his individual characteristics. By the form of the implemented influences one can judge a person’s communication skills and character traits, and by the specifics of the organization of a speech message - about general culture and literacy.

The communicative side of communication (or communication in the narrow sense of the word) consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals.

The interactive side consists of organizing interaction between communicating individuals (exchange of actions).

The perceptual side of communication means the process of perception and cognition of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis.

Bibliography

1. Andreeva G.M. The place of interpersonal perception in the system of perceptual processes and features of its content // Interpersonal perception in the group. M., 1981.

2. Bern E. Games that people play. People who play games / Transl. from English M., 1988.

3. Vygotsky L.S. History of the development of higher mental functions. Collection op. M., 1983, vol. 3.

4. Kon I.S. Opening Ya. - M, 1998. -274 p.

5. Kunitsyna V.N., Kazarinova N.V., Pogolsha V.M. Interpersonal communication. St. Petersburg, 2001.

6. Leontyev A.N. Problems of mental development. M., 1972.

7. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. 4th edition: Academy Publishing House, 2007.

8. Lomov B.F. Communication as a problem of psychology // Methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1995.

9. Obozov N.N. Interpersonal relationships. L., 2005.

10. Parsons T. The concept of society: components and relationships / THESIS: Theory and history of economic and social institutions and systems. Almanac. - 1993, vol. 1, Issue. 2.

11. Rubinshtein S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology: In 2 volumes. T. 1. - M.: Pedagogy, 1989.

12. Solovyova O.V. Feedback in interpersonal communication. M., 1992.

13. Stolyarenko L.D. Psychology of business communication and management. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2006. - 512 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Depending on the content

Communication is divided into the following types, depending on the purpose of the conversation and its content.

Material – may involve the exchange of items needed for an activity. It can occur between close people, when people pass household items to each other, or, for example, in a store, while purchasing various products. In most cases, such communication serves as a way to satisfy everyday and current human needs.
Cognitive – includes the transfer of various information. It can broaden a person’s horizons, this may include discussing various abilities and skills and sharing existing experience. In most cases it occurs in the professional sphere.
Conditional – refers to the mental states of people. May include consoling the interlocutor and providing him with moral assistance.
Motivational – includes motivation and motivation. It can inspire a person to take certain actions, set various goals for him and encourage him to take some kind of action.
Activity - consists of physical contact, the exchange of various actions, skills, abilities or operations.

Depending on your goals

Communication is divided into two main groups, depending on the goals and intentions.

Biological – associated with the natural needs of a person necessary to maintain the vitality and development of the body.
Social – refers to interaction with other people, aimed at personal growth, increasing social status and strengthening contact with society.

Depending on the funds

There are several types of communication, depending on the means used by a person.

Direct – carried out with the help of organs and parts of the body given to man by nature. For example, arms, legs, eyes or vocal cords. In this case, improvised means are not used.
Indirect – implies communication using improvised means. For example, throw a stone, leave a mark on the ground, or pick up a stick. Also includes communication by cell phone, email, or other means of communication.
Direct – involves personal communication between two or more people. This can include both casual conversations and physical contact.
Indirect – represents communication through third parties. Involves negotiations, spreading rumors or transmitting some information.

Depending on time

Communication is divided into two groups, depending on the duration of contact.

Short-term – not permanent, can last from a couple of minutes to several hours.
Long-term – is permanent. In the process, people get to know each other better, build personal relationships, resolve conflicts, or work together.

Other types

There are also several other types of communication that do not fall into the above categories. These include the following:

Verbal is one of the main types of communication carried out through speech. Provides a person with ample opportunities, as well as the ability to express his thoughts. Can refer to both business conversations and everyday conversations.
Non-verbal - includes communication through gestures, tactile contacts, touches and other things. For example, nod your head or wave goodbye.
Business – refers to career growth and professional affairs. A person is trying to make a business acquaintance or successfully negotiate.
Educational - communication through which one person tries to have a significant influence on another. An example is the process of raising a child by a parent.
Personal communication, unlike business communication, does not belong to the professional sphere. People may be interested in each other's opinions or moods for the sake of their own goals and to maintain personal relationships. For example, you can cite friendships or family relationships.

Basic types of communication

There are three main types of communication. These include imperative, dialogical and manipulative.

- Imperative communication is sometimes called directive or authoritarian. Often one of the interlocutors tries in every possible way to subjugate the other. He is trying to take control of his consciousness and thoughts, to control all further actions. A person who chooses this type of communication, in most cases, does not hide his intentions and openly tries to subjugate his interlocutor.

Manipulative communication is very similar to imperative communication. The person also tries to influence the interlocutor, only in this case he acts hidden. Such communication requires special skills and abilities, and can often play a cruel joke on a person, making him a victim of his own traps.

Psychologists divide manipulative systems into 4 main groups.

An active manipulator does not tolerate secrecy and tries to exert influence through active methods. In most cases, high social status allows him to do this, for example, in the case of a parent and a child. Such a person wants to manage all affairs, no matter what, and does not accept other options.
A passive manipulator is the exact opposite of the first option. He tries to pretend to be stupid and weak so as not to show much effort. Those around him have to do all the work for him. Such a person can achieve a lot without doing anything.
A competitive manipulator is unwilling to compromise and perceives his life as a constant competition. He does not accept defeat and sees himself as a fighter for his rights. Such a person tries to gain the upper hand everywhere and does not accept refusals.
An indifferent manipulator makes others think that he does not care at all about what is happening. He is very unpredictable, such a person can begin to act actively, and then again become impassive. Acts only for his own benefit.

Imperative and manipulative types of communication are very similar to each other and are classified as monologue. After all, a person trying to influence his interlocutor is in constant communication with himself and carefully thinks through all his actions. The interlocutor is not of particular value to him.

Dialogical communication is the exact opposite of the first two types. It first of all requires equality and mutual understanding of the interlocutors. In some cases, such communication is usually called humanistic. However, the emergence of dialogical communication requires compliance with a number of the following rules.

Treats the psychological state of the interlocutor with respect and attention, does not ignore his requests and wishes.
Do not evaluate your partner by his personal qualities, and completely trust him.
Respect the opinions and decisions of your interlocutor, even if you think they are wrong. It is necessary to perceive your partner as an equal and take his word into account.
Try to solve emerging difficulties together, and do not leave problems for the future.
Address your partner only on your own behalf and speak to him sincerely, try to express all your feelings.

Summing up

It should be noted that the above types of communication can very rarely occur in life in a solitary form. They mix with each other, forming a new species. Each type of communication is necessary for the proper formation of human society. While in society, a person must be able to communicate correctly with others and behave like a full-fledged, healthy person.

In order to find a common language with the outside world, you need to be aware of what type of communication is acceptable in a particular area.

Throughout life, a person enters into various relationships. He turns to another person in order to get what he wants, teaches and learns himself (this means not only systematic training, but also instruction, transfer of experience), shares joy when everything is fine, seeks sympathy if trouble happens.

In these and other cases, communication takes place - the interaction of two or more individuals exchanging information. Psychologists identify the following types of communication and their classification.

Depending on what exactly people exchange, there are:

material;
cognitive;
conditioned;
motivational;
activity and
conventional communication.

At material communication involves the exchange of products of activity, for example, in a store. Cognitive communication is the exchange of knowledge. It is used by teachers, educators, lecturers, department teachers, colleagues in a scientific laboratory, engineers at an enterprise, employees in an office, etc. Since people work together, this type of communication is implemented in combination with active(conversations about joint activities while they are being carried out).

Air-conditioned communication aims to change the mental state of the interlocutor: to console a crying friend, to put an athlete on alert, etc. At the core motivational communication - an incentive to take one or another action, the formation of needs, attitudes: the child wants to play, and the mother convinces him to sit down for homework. Conventional communication is intended to prepare for upcoming activities (ceremonies, rituals, norms and rules of etiquette).

Types of communication by purpose

In order to satisfy basic needs and procreate, people enter into biological communication. This includes sexual activity and breastfeeding.

Goals social communication – establishing contacts with other people and personal growth. In addition to general ones, there are private goals, of which there are exactly as many as the needs of each inhabitant of the Earth.

Types of communication by means

Depending on the means used, information exchange can be:

immediate;
indirect;
straight;
indirect.

Direct communication occurs with the help of organs that are given to humans by nature: vocal cords, arms, torso, head. If objects of nature (sticks, stones, footprints on the ground) and achievements of civilization (writing, television and radio broadcasting, e-mail, Skype, social networks) are used to transmit information, this is indirect interaction. People resort to it to talk with family, friends, colleagues, and friends who are not nearby. Natural objects helped primitive people successfully hunt and engage in other vital activities.

At direct In communication, individuals communicate personally. This could be a conversation, a hug, a handshake, a quarrel. Participants in the event see each other without technical means and immediately react to the statements and actions of the interlocutor. Indirect communication is the delivery of information through an intermediary (diplomat, lawyer, etc.).

Types of communication by time

Communication can be short-term or long-term. Short term takes from a few minutes to a couple of hours. In progress long-term interaction, participants discuss ways to solve upcoming problems, and also express themselves, try to get to know each other better, strengthen business or friendly relationships, test themselves and their partner for compatibility.

Other types of communication

In addition to the types listed, communication can be:

business;
personal;
instrumental;
target;
verbal;
non-verbal;
formal-role;
manipulative.

Contents business communication is the work performed together. Specialists negotiate, discuss the preparation of a report, work plan for the next six months, etc. When entering into personal communication, people are interested in each other’s opinions, moods, and inner worlds, express attitudes toward phenomena and events in the surrounding world, and resolve conflicts.

Instrumental communication is establishing contacts to achieve certain goals. It is used by employees who want to make a career or simply be successful at work (this is facilitated by the ability to interact with different people, build friendly relationships), politicians (they learn to persuade, lead), etc. Target communication is designed to satisfy the need to establish contacts with other people.

Verbal communication is carried out through sounding speech and is realized in the form of conversation. Conversations can be formalized (conference, dissertation defense, protocol reception), semi-formalized (small talk) and informal (communication in everyday life).

At non-verbal When communicating, partners exchange “replicas” using gestures, facial expressions, pantomime, touches (nod of the head, raised hand in class, waving goodbye, etc.).

Each person has a social status and role (teacher, head of department, director of a company, junior researcher, etc.). In order to correspond to the position, the individual behaves as prescribed by the norms accepted in society. The type of communication depending on status and role is called formal-role.

One of the ways of interaction between people is manipulation. Wanting to persuade the other to take some action, one of the partners uses manipulative communication. Flattery, threats, whims, etc. are used.

Pedagogical communication

Without communication, it is impossible to effectively raise and educate children. Under pedagogical communication implies interaction between teacher and student, which contributes to the creation of a favorable microclimate in the team and the diversified development of the individual.

When working with children, the teacher chooses one of the styles:

based on passion for a joint business;
based on friendship;
dialogue;
distancing;
intimidation;
flirting.

Ways of interaction based on passion for a common cause, friendly communication and dialogue are considered positive. A creative teacher-enthusiast is able to captivate and interest children, but while practicing this, he will not allow familiarity. Distancing is appropriate if the logic of the educational process requires it. Intimidation and flirtation are unacceptable styles; their use indicates the teacher’s professional incompetence.

Sharing information in life

The listed types and styles of communication are rarely found in their “pure form”. Thus, a female secretary-referent, talking with the director of an enterprise, uses cognitive, instrumental, business, direct, formal-role, verbal communication. When talking on the phone with a friend, she uses indirect, verbal, personal communication. Having gone on maternity leave, she practices biological, targeted, verbal and non-verbal interaction. All types of communication are necessary for the formation of the human psyche, the individual’s mastery of cultural norms and behavioral characteristics in society, the formation of a reasonable, highly moral, physically and psychologically healthy personality.

Target : to acquaint students with the features of the process of interaction between people, during which interpersonal relationships arise, manifest themselves and are formed.

Plan:

General characteristics of human communication.

Communication concept. Communication functions.

Psychology of interpersonal influence.

Text:

General characteristics of human communication.

Communication is a process of interaction between people, during which interpersonal relationships arise, manifest and are formed. This is the process of transmitting and receiving messages using verbal and non-verbal means, including feedback, resulting in the exchange of information between participants in communication. Communication is seen as the most important social need.

Sides of communication.

The communicative side of communication is the exchange of information between people.

The interactive side of communication is the organization of interaction between people.

The perceptual side of communication is the process of communication partners perceiving each other and establishing mutual understanding on this basis.

Communication functions.

Information and communication – transmission and reception of information as a message. The main elements are: the text and the person’s attitude towards it.

Regulatory-communicative – the organization of interaction between people, as well as a person’s correction of his activity or state (the relationship between motives, needs, intentions, goals, etc.). Communication is aimed at achieving harmony and establishing strong-willed unity.

Affective-communicative – the process of making changes in the state of people under special or involuntary influence.

Psychology of communication.

The category “communication” is one of the central ones in psychological science, along with such categories as “thinking”, “behaviour”, “personality”, “relationships”. The “cross-cutting nature” of the communication problem becomes clear if we give one of the typical definitions of interpersonal communication. According to this definition, interpersonal communication is a process of interaction between at least two persons, aimed at mutual knowledge, establishment and development of relationships and involving mutual influence on the states, views, behavior and regulation of the joint activities of the participants in this process.

Over the past 20-25 years, the study of the problem of communication has become one of the leading areas of research in psychological science, and especially in social psychology. Its movement to the center of psychological research is explained by a change in the methodological situation that has clearly emerged in social psychology in the last two decades. From a subject of research, communication has simultaneously turned into a method, a principle for studying, first, cognitive processes, and then the personality of a person as a whole (Znakov V., 1994).

Communication is not the subject of only psychological research, therefore the task of identifying the specifically psychological aspect of this category inevitably arises (Lomov B.F., 1984). At the same time, the question of the connection between communication and activity is fundamental; one of the methodological principles for revealing this relationship is the idea of the unity of communication and activity (Andreeva G.M., 1988). Based on this principle, under communication understands the reality of human relations, which presupposes any forms of joint activity of people.

However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered as two sides of a person’s social existence; in other cases, communication is understood as an element of any activity, and the latter is considered as a condition for communication in general (Leontyev A.A., 1965). And finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity (Leontyev A.A., 1975).

It should be noted that in the overwhelming majority of psychological interpretations of activity, the basis of its definitions and categorical-conceptual apparatus is the “subject-object” relationship, which nevertheless covers only one side of human social existence. In this regard, there is a need to develop a category of communication that reveals another, no less significant side of human social existence, namely, the “subject-subject(s)” relationship.

Here you can quote the opinion of V.V. Znakova, which reflects the existing ideas about the category of communication in modern Russian psychology: “Communication I will call this form of interaction between subjects, which is initially motivated by their desire to identify each other’s mental qualities and during which interpersonal relationships are formed between them... Under joint activity, further will mean situations in which interpersonal communication between people is subordinated to a common goal - solving a specific problem” (Znakov V.V., 1994).

The subject-subject approach to the problem of the relationship between communication and activity overcomes the one-sided understanding of activity only as a subject-object relationship. In Russian psychology, this approach is implemented through the methodological principle of communication as subject-subject interaction, theoretically and experimentally developed by B.F. Lomov (1984) and his colleagues. Communication considered in this regard acts as a special independent form of activity of the subject. Its result is not so much a transformed object (material or ideal), but rather the relationship of a person with a person, with other people. In the process of communication, not only a mutual exchange of activities takes place, but also perceptions, ideas, feelings, a system of “subject-subject(s)” relationships manifests itself and develops.

In general, the theoretical and experimental development of the principle of communication in domestic social psychology is presented in a number of collective works cited above, as well as in the works “Psychological Studies of Communication” (1985), “Cognition and Communication” (1988).

In the work of A.V. Brushlinsky and V.A. Polikarpova (1990), along with this, provides a critical understanding of this methodological principle, and also lists the most famous cycles of research in which all the multifaceted problems of communication in domestic psychological science are analyzed.

Communication structure. In Russian social psychology, the problem of the structure of communication occupies an important place. The methodological study of this issue at the moment allows us to identify a set of fairly generally accepted ideas about the structure of communication (Andreeva G.M., 1988; Lomov B.F., 1981; Znakov V.V., 1994), which serve as a general methodological guideline for organizing research.

Under object structure in science we understand the order of stable connections between the elements of the object of study, ensuring its integrity as a phenomenon during external and internal changes. The problem of the structure of communication can be approached in different ways, both by highlighting the levels of analysis of this phenomenon, and by listing its main functions. Usually at least three levels of analysis(Lomov B.F., 1984):

1. Macro level: an individual’s communication with other people is considered as the most important aspect of his lifestyle. At this level, the process of communication is studied in time intervals comparable to the duration of human life, with an emphasis on the analysis of the mental development of the individual. Communication here acts as a complex developing network of relationships between an individual and other people and social groups.

2. Mesa level (middle level): communication is considered as a changing set of purposeful, logically completed contacts or interaction situations in which people find themselves in the process of current life activity at specific time periods of their lives. The main emphasis in the study of communication at this level is on the content components of communication situations - “about what” and “for what purpose.” Around this core of the topic, the subject of communication, the dynamics of communication are revealed, the means used (verbal and non-verbal) and the phases or stages of communication during which the exchange of ideas, ideas and experiences are carried out are analyzed.

3. Micro level: here the main emphasis is on the analysis of elementary units of communication as related acts, or transactions. It is important to emphasize that the elementary unit of communication is not a change in the intermittent behavioral acts of its participants, but their interaction. It includes not only the action of one of the partners, but also the associated assistance or opposition of the other (for example, “question-answer”, “incitement to action - action”, “communication of information - attitude towards it”, etc.). Each of the listed levels of analysis requires special theoretical, methodological and methodological support, as well as its own special conceptual apparatus. And since many problems in psychology are complex, the task arises of developing ways to identify relationships between different levels and discover the principles of these relationships.

1. What is a healthy lifestyle? A. List of activities aimed at preserving and strengthening health b.

Medical and physical training complex

V. Individual system of behavior aimed at maintaining and strengthening health

d. Regular physical exercise

2. What is a daily routine?

A. Order of daily activities

b. The established routine of a person’s life, including work, nutrition, rest and sleep

V. List of daily tasks distributed by execution time

d. Strict adherence to certain rules

3. What is balanced nutrition?

A. Meals distributed according to meal times

b. Nutrition based on the body's needs

V. Eating a specific set of foods

d. Nutrition with a certain ratio of nutrients

4. What are the nutrients that have energy value?

A. Proteins, fats, carbohydrates and mineral salts

b. Water, proteins, fats and carbohydrates

V. Proteins fats carbohydrates

g. Fats and carbohydrates

5. What are vitamins?

A. Organic chemical compounds necessary for the synthesis of protein enzymes

b. Inorganic chemical compounds necessary for the body to function

V. Organic chemical compounds that are enzymes

d. Organic chemical compounds contained in food

6. What is motor activity?

A. The number of movements necessary for the body to function

b. Physical education and sports

V. Performing any movements in daily activities

d. Any muscle activity that ensures optimal functioning of the body and good health

Please help me answer questions about music for grade 6 on the musical "Notre Dame de Paris" 1) What is a musical? 2) In what year did the musical debut? 3) B

In which country was this musical first performed? 4) What does “Notre-Dame de Paris” mean in translation? 5) The author of the novel? 6) Name the composer and librettist of the musical? 7) What is a librettist? 8) Who is a librettist? 9) Where does the action take place (city) 10) Who is Esmeralda’s guardian? 11) What was Quasimode’s job in the cathedral? 12) King of the Vagabonds? 13) Why did the tramps want to hang the poet Gringoire? 14) why was the execution (hanging of the poet) not put into practice? 15) Name Quasimod’s guardian and mentor? 16) Why was Quasimodo sentenced to ride on the wheel? 17) Name the main characters (7 people) 18) Who was chosen as the king of the jesters? 19) For what crime was Esmeralda hanged? 20) What does the inscription on the wall of the Anke Cathedral mean? 21) Who was Esmeralda in love with? 22) Who wounded Captain Phoebus with Esmeralda’s dagger? 23) Name Esmeralda’s husband? 24) Who will Captain Phoebus stay with? 25) How will the priest Frolo die?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Depending on the content

Depending on your goals

Depending on the funds

Depending on time

Other types

Basic types of communication

Summing up

Types of communication by purpose

Types of communication by means

Types of communication by time

Other types of communication

Pedagogical communication

Sharing information in life

Psychology of interpersonal influence.

General characteristics of human communication.

Psychology of communication.

Literature

Russian language

Essays

Geography

Story

Miscellaneous

Biology

Physics