„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

exactly the right amount of force, the next ball will go where you wish. However, the
predictability assumption is false when applied to human communication. No two
people respond to the same message in the same way. Viewing communication as active
then passive, or all cause and effect, distorts the process.
Also, emphasizing cause and effect tempts the person, as Stewart and Logan (1993,
p. 42) state, “to focus on who’s at fault or who caused a problem to occur.” Given both
sides and a fuller understanding of the context, it is very difficult to tell who “started it”
or who is to blame. The complexities of human relationships do not allow for such a
simplistic explanation. Moreover, fault finding and blaming make improving a situation
almost impossible.
Another problem with viewing communication from the interactional view is the
failure to see people as changing while they are communicating (Stewart & Logan,
1993). Neither humans nor environments are constant over time. “Moreover,” as
Sameroff and Chandler (1975, p. 234) note, “these differences are interdependent and
change as a function of the mutual influence on one another.” One cannot ignore this
mutuality of influence or interdependence.
When viewing communication from the interactional perspective, a person is not
only concerned with the “proper” preparation and delivery of messages, he or she is also
listening for feedback to alter future messages—thus making the process less speakercentered
and more message-centered. A more equal emphasis on the “encoding” and
“decoding” processes acknowledges the problems “in translating our thoughts into
words or other symbols and in deciphering the words or symbols of others into terms we
can understand” (Gronbeck et al., 1994, p. 501).
The billiard-ball view of communication also suggests a series of actions and
reactions, “a process that is somewhat circular: sending and receiving, sending and
receiving, and so on” (Berko, Wolvin, & Wolvin, 1992, p. 52). Each communicator is
seen as either sending or receiving. The ability to simultaneously send and receive is not
recognized (Sereno & Bodaken, 1975; Burgoon, 1978).
The interactional framework implies that the speaker can manipulate the message.
In other words, if he or she chooses the “right” words, the communication problems will
be solved. Unfortunately, communication is not that simple. Even if both parties select
the “right” words and agree on their meanings, misunderstanding can still occur because
each person brings different experiences to the communication event. As Gronbeck et al.
(1994, p. 501) point out, “even when a message is completely clear and understandable,
we often don’t like it. Problems in ‘meaning’ or ‘meaningfulness’ often aren’t a matter
of comprehension but of reaction; of agreement; of shared concepts, beliefs, attitudes,
values.”
THE TRANSACTIONAL VIEW
A more accurate view of the communication process takes into account the simultaneity
of sending and receiving, mutual influence, and interdependence. It also takes into
144 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer