Disconfirming Communication Examples
Disconfirming communication dismisses the value of a person; while confirming messages communicates that the message exists. In confirming messages, the message is significant to the speaker; and the speaker is seen valuable as an interaction partner. Confirming communication refers to the three positive types of messages that have the best chance of being perceived as confirming: recognition, acknowledging the ideas and feelings of others, and lastly there is endorsement, which means you agree with the speaker and is the highest form of confirming. In disconfirming, the individual isn’t seen as important enough to be taken seriously or engage with in an honest and straightforward way. There are three types of disconfirming messages, (1) disconfirming by indifference to the other, (2) disconfirming by imperviousness, and then (3) disconfirming by disqualification.
Disconfirmation by indifference denies other’s existence. There are three characteristics of disconfirmation by indifference: denial of presence, avoiding involvement, and rejecting communication. The first type of characteristic from disconfirming …show more content…
a message by indifference is to deny presence of the individual. For example, if you were in the same room, you would be disconfirming them, if you ignore them and pretend that they do not exist or are not there. The second type of characteristic is to avoid involvement. Again, if you and the individual are in the same room, you avoid eye contact and physical contact. Also in some messages, rather than call or refer to someone by their name, you distance yourself by pretending that the other does not have a self. Then third, there is rejecting the other’s communication. In effect, you’re saying “you aren’t here,” you ignore the other completely by ignoring their message and bringing up another topic. Let's say, the individual brings up a topic, once it’s your turn in the conversation, you begin to talk about something completely oblique to their message. In sense, you are declaring “you aren’t here,” or that you aren’t entertaining their message.
Disconfirmation by imperviousness denies, invalidates, or distorts the others expression of their experience. This message basically denies the individual’s right to the feeling. In effect, “you don’t have a right to that feeling,” “you don’t feel that,” and so it’s a put-down of the other person’s feeling statements. The individual will report a feeling, share the feeling, and then to disconfirm that you say “No, it’s not that that you feel, but instead you feel this other thing,” like “you don’t love me, you’re just smitten.” That is disconfirming because you’re basically saying, “I know how you feel better than you do.”
Disconfirming by disqualification, this message communicates that the other person or the conversation lacks significance or importance. A disqualification of the message is to question the other’s competence. As if you’re questioning the other’s value as a person; ultimately questioning what they’re worth as an individual. For instance, “can’t you do anything right?” an example of a disconfirming message, it undermines the other person’s competence and their ability to make sound decisions. Also in the message, you disqualify the message itself.
The best personal experience in relevance to disconfirming a message is the ending result of my last romantic relationship. We met in the workplace, and began our relationship there initially as friends, which transition into a romantic relationship. After a year of dating, we began having issues in the relationship. We were continually fighting, and would disconfirm each other’s message constantly. After we broke up, we were still working together. He was suspended while we were still together, which caused the constant arguments. But after a one-month suspension, he was coming back to the store. Since we hadn’t seen each other in this month’s time, I knew it would be awkward. I knew we would engage in disconfirming by indifference. Neither of us knew what to say so we would deny each other’s presence until we could figure what to say.
Our first interaction after our break-up began with me opening the door of the store for him, since we kept it locked until opening time. Shortly after opening the door, he said hello, I engage in avoiding involvement by looking away and going back to my work. Afterwards, we basically ignored each other’s presence. If I needed merchandise from the stock room, I made sure he wasn’t back there or was on the sales floor. If he were in the back, then I would look away into the distance or look at my phone to avoid any sort of eye contact. If he happened to be in an area where I couldn’t avoid his presence, then I would send someone to retrieve the item for me. Everyone in the store was curious of the status of the relationship, so I would constantly get asked what had happened between us? Which I gladly ignored by changing the subject, I rejected any communication based upon our relationship. And the hardest disconfirmation for me, was avoiding saying his name. I was hurt by our breakup, so I couldn’t muster the courage to say his name because it’d cause me to reminisce. Instead I would replace his name with, “he and him” or in reference to Harry Potter “he who shall not be named.” But after days of ignoring each other, we decided to be cordial to each other. We sat down on a bench near the store, to discuss our relationship. Deeper into the conversation, he said he “loved me, and never meant to hurt me,” which I responded with “you don’t hurt people you love.” I disconfirm his message, by denying it. I couldn’t believe that someone who claimed to love me could possibly break my heart. We would both deny each other’s messages.
The interpersonal goals of the relationship, in my mind, were to be happy and possibly build a life together.
My self-presentation goals were to be a great girlfriend. My relational goal was to maintain the relationship, open up communication to limit arguments, and begin looking for apartments together. After his suspension, communication got worse. I fail in my attempt to open up our communication channels; he had constantly focused on the suspension, which took away from the focus on our relationship. I didn’t realized how much damage that had caused the relationship. But he failed to recognize my intention to achieve the goal to save and maintain the relationship. At that point, he had different relations goals for the relationship, which he engage in the strategic inferential model, by using words or lack there of, to recognize his intentions and
goals.
Disconfirmation by indifference denies other’s existence. There are three characteristics of disconfirmation by indifference: denial of presence, avoiding involvement, and rejecting communication. The first type of characteristic from disconfirming …show more content…
a message by indifference is to deny presence of the individual. For example, if you were in the same room, you would be disconfirming them, if you ignore them and pretend that they do not exist or are not there. The second type of characteristic is to avoid involvement. Again, if you and the individual are in the same room, you avoid eye contact and physical contact. Also in some messages, rather than call or refer to someone by their name, you distance yourself by pretending that the other does not have a self. Then third, there is rejecting the other’s communication. In effect, you’re saying “you aren’t here,” you ignore the other completely by ignoring their message and bringing up another topic. Let's say, the individual brings up a topic, once it’s your turn in the conversation, you begin to talk about something completely oblique to their message. In sense, you are declaring “you aren’t here,” or that you aren’t entertaining their message.
Disconfirmation by imperviousness denies, invalidates, or distorts the others expression of their experience. This message basically denies the individual’s right to the feeling. In effect, “you don’t have a right to that feeling,” “you don’t feel that,” and so it’s a put-down of the other person’s feeling statements. The individual will report a feeling, share the feeling, and then to disconfirm that you say “No, it’s not that that you feel, but instead you feel this other thing,” like “you don’t love me, you’re just smitten.” That is disconfirming because you’re basically saying, “I know how you feel better than you do.”
Disconfirming by disqualification, this message communicates that the other person or the conversation lacks significance or importance. A disqualification of the message is to question the other’s competence. As if you’re questioning the other’s value as a person; ultimately questioning what they’re worth as an individual. For instance, “can’t you do anything right?” an example of a disconfirming message, it undermines the other person’s competence and their ability to make sound decisions. Also in the message, you disqualify the message itself.
The best personal experience in relevance to disconfirming a message is the ending result of my last romantic relationship. We met in the workplace, and began our relationship there initially as friends, which transition into a romantic relationship. After a year of dating, we began having issues in the relationship. We were continually fighting, and would disconfirm each other’s message constantly. After we broke up, we were still working together. He was suspended while we were still together, which caused the constant arguments. But after a one-month suspension, he was coming back to the store. Since we hadn’t seen each other in this month’s time, I knew it would be awkward. I knew we would engage in disconfirming by indifference. Neither of us knew what to say so we would deny each other’s presence until we could figure what to say.
Our first interaction after our break-up began with me opening the door of the store for him, since we kept it locked until opening time. Shortly after opening the door, he said hello, I engage in avoiding involvement by looking away and going back to my work. Afterwards, we basically ignored each other’s presence. If I needed merchandise from the stock room, I made sure he wasn’t back there or was on the sales floor. If he were in the back, then I would look away into the distance or look at my phone to avoid any sort of eye contact. If he happened to be in an area where I couldn’t avoid his presence, then I would send someone to retrieve the item for me. Everyone in the store was curious of the status of the relationship, so I would constantly get asked what had happened between us? Which I gladly ignored by changing the subject, I rejected any communication based upon our relationship. And the hardest disconfirmation for me, was avoiding saying his name. I was hurt by our breakup, so I couldn’t muster the courage to say his name because it’d cause me to reminisce. Instead I would replace his name with, “he and him” or in reference to Harry Potter “he who shall not be named.” But after days of ignoring each other, we decided to be cordial to each other. We sat down on a bench near the store, to discuss our relationship. Deeper into the conversation, he said he “loved me, and never meant to hurt me,” which I responded with “you don’t hurt people you love.” I disconfirm his message, by denying it. I couldn’t believe that someone who claimed to love me could possibly break my heart. We would both deny each other’s messages.
The interpersonal goals of the relationship, in my mind, were to be happy and possibly build a life together.
My self-presentation goals were to be a great girlfriend. My relational goal was to maintain the relationship, open up communication to limit arguments, and begin looking for apartments together. After his suspension, communication got worse. I fail in my attempt to open up our communication channels; he had constantly focused on the suspension, which took away from the focus on our relationship. I didn’t realized how much damage that had caused the relationship. But he failed to recognize my intention to achieve the goal to save and maintain the relationship. At that point, he had different relations goals for the relationship, which he engage in the strategic inferential model, by using words or lack there of, to recognize his intentions and
goals.