Some relationships are always closer and more interpersonal than the others. There is often a higher likelihood for romantic or marriage relationships to be faced with the adversity of being exposed to the dark side of interpersonal communication. Interpersonal relations are usually meant to have people sharing a joyful moment together. However, the dark side of the communications that transpires in some of these relations that sometimes they can be painful and hurt. This causes some parties involved in interpersonal relationships to tend using different aspects of the dark side of interpersonal communication ( Beatty et al., 1999). To that extent, avoidance, secrecy, and deception are broadly explored from various perspectives in this text.
Avoidance
The notion of avoidance in interpersonal communication will most likely lead to the emergence of problems and challenges in a relationship between partners concerning distrust, dissatisfaction and a feeling of rejection. Roloff and Ifert (1998) observe that there is a bright side that could be associated with the tendency of pursuing avoidance in interpersonal communication between parties in a relationship. To this extent, the argument in support of avoidance indicates that it is, sometimes, more beneficial to stay away from discussing certain issues since they may be substantially diminutive rendering them almost worthless to mention or talk about. Moreover, avoidance may sometimes be necessary as an aspect of the dark side of interpersonal communication when it is clear that discussing a given topic or issue could result in unnecessary disagreements or hurt the feelings of the other person. In other words, some issues may not be worth discussing in a relationship and partners may find themselves explicitly or implicitly avoiding them owing to their inappropriateness in certain specific circumstances.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Besides, the tendency to practice avoidance whenever an interpersonal communication takes place between individuals in a relationship when they are more concerned about ensuring that their beloved ones are adequately protected against unnecessarily suffering. This is usually because such people believe that happiness of the loved ones and their wellbeing are paramount and they will go at all extents to realize them. Another reason to which avoidance could be attributed to is the need for individuals to ensure that either they or their loved ones are adequately protected from rejection, judgment, vulnerability, and disappointment associated with indulgence in certain issues concerning their lives. Obviously, the protection of oneself or others from any harm is a positive thing thus avoidance in interpersonal communication may not just be considered as the dark side of interpersonal communication but it could very well form part of a light side ( Roloff & Ifert, 1998).
Secrecy
Studies have recently revealed that partners of family members always have secrets that can be used in exemplifying the dark side of interpersonal communication. Some of these secrets usually find a prominent depiction in the various research literature as well as different sources of media. Researchers have been able to establish that secrecy involves the issuance of statements among partners that are often associated with overt deception ( Kelly, 2002). For instance, a person can choose to lie about being in a location where he or she is not. Another one may lie about his or her relationship status to keep the secret about his or her extramarital affair. Considering the likelihood of extremely adverse outcomes concerning secrecy, scholarly findings, and popular culture have always tried to focus on understanding the advantages of openness in communication and the dangers of secrecy. It is not in doubt that openness and transparency of communication form part of a critical consideration in any given relationship. Nonetheless, it is possible for some people to exist in a relationship based on the assumption that a certain level of avoiding certain truths and facts related to some topics or keeping certain kinds of secrets could achieve success in distorting openness ( Blackmon, 2012).
According to Kelly (2002), there is a common assumption among people that if they become entirely open and transparent with one another, they are most likely to end up with long-lasting and satisfying relationships. It is without a doubt that the absence of secrecy could significantly assist in building healthy, strong and effective relationships between people. In the case of partners of couples, secrecy would appear to take away their ability to confide in each other. Some researchers have attempted to equate the existence of healthy relationships with transparency and openness through the promotion of the ideology of intimacy. In this case, oneness in communication is regarded as being associated with inherent benefits as it helps in eliminating the tendency of secrecy between couples of partners who have chosen to relate intimately ( Bellman, 1981). The aspect of secrecy, as part of the dark side of interpersonal communication, may be linked to some consequences. Secrecy in a relationship often comes with considerable cost leaving the parties involved adverse impacts that could only be cleared upon their revelation of the secrets. Some people often think that guarding a secret is equivalent to avoiding thinking about it.
On the contrary, trying to keep a secret could cause a person to remain in constant thoughts about it. Moreover, attempting to suppress a secret could result in increased intrusiveness or frequency of having the thoughts around it ( Lloyd, 2014). For example, if a person is advised to avoid thinking about something, there is a higher likelihood that a person will always be thinking about that thing even more. This is a similar situation that is usually faced by people who try to keep secrets for one reason or another. In the end people with the tendency of involving the aspect of secrecy in their interpersonal communication could find themselves struggling with severe distress. This is because concealing facts or information often leads to the production of unwanted thoughts, intrusive and being preoccupied with such concealments. In this respect, distress arises owing to accumulated stress and worry associated with secrecy, and the affected individuals will tend to reveal the secrets they are keeping as a way of trying to relieve themselves of distress (Beatty et al., 1999).
Over the last couple of decades, there has been an increase in awareness surrounding the concern of privacy around the global society especially following the rise in the popularity of internet or online communication. Despite the consideration of privacy as an aspect of the dark side of interpersonal communication, some experts have managed to come out and strongly emphasize the fundamental significance of upholding privacy in any form of communication. Considering the status that is sometimes accorded to privacy in communicating and interacting with others, there are profound implications of losing privacy or exposing private matters during interpersonal communication. Kelly (2002) posits that there is a need to perform a full analysis of the of the communication facet associated with privacy before its integration with other aspects of interpersonal communication. In examining and evaluating the relevance of privacy in interpersonal communication, it may be of necessity to address some issues such as the distinctions of private and non-private settings of communication.
Furthermore, it would be critical to establish the various the different dimensions of privacy concerning the dark side of interpersonal communication. The implication of upholding privacy in an interpersonal form of communication may not necessarily amount to being regarded as its dark side. There may be variations concerning the considerations and rules used by various individuals in the management of the privacy of their personal information. Explicit and implicit norms within the family are often used as standards for the acquisition of the initial rules that govern the aspect of privacy in interpersonal communication ( Bellman, 1981). In spite of being somehow like a routine, the standards of privacy may change owing to resistance or certain circumstances like divorce which could trigger a change in the manner in which certain inappropriate topics are discussed. Since people have different ways of viewing things that constitute privacy in interpersonal communication, it may be challenging to point accusations to an individual for withholding information that others have a right to know.
Deception
The explanation by Vangelisti and Perlman (2006) refers to deception as the act of causing people to accept as valid or true something that is invalid or false. Even though it is believed that keeping secrets is inherently deceptive, some researchers have been able to establish that lying and deception may not always represent a dark side of interpersonal communications. Keeping secrets and being deceptive has always been associated with a negative connotation. However, those against this kind of mentality have been able to argue that deception may be used as a necessity towards trying to protect someone's feeling against getting harmed emotionally or otherwise. Studies have also found that not all people are always in agreement that successful relationships must include absolute honesty without any form of deception. To that extent, it is worth understanding that lying and deceit form part of communicative reality that usually characterizes interpersonal communications among different parties that may be in a relationship. This kind of communicative reality makes it relevant and important to understand the motives behind different lies that are told in the course of interpersonal communication and the associated consequences.
There is always the tendency to keeping more secrets or largely become deceptive during the beginning of a relationship. This particular phase of in most relationships is usually characterized by people being secretive or deceptive regarding their previous relationships, personality, and set of skills or income as they try to create a desirable or favorable impression. Moreover, humans tend to try and project, or display themselves as more competent and likable. In some cases, a person getting into a relationship for the first time may find himself or herself exaggerating certain issues as a way of remaining relevant or trying to impress the other person the relationship. At the initial phase of a relationship the frequency of lying, deception of trying to keep secrets may be considered high since the two people involved in that relationship do not know each other well. This implies that each of the two people in that particular relationship may not be having adequate information about the other person; therefore, it is almost unlikely that the correct and truthful information will contradict lies they are telling to each other. An altruistic form of deception is often involved in interpersonal communication as a way of building relational self-esteem, demonstrating loyalty or sparing someone the pain and embarrassment associated with information that may be hurtful ( Lane & Wegner, 1995).
In the process of trying to keep secrets from one another, parties aiming at working out the relation at the initial phase may find themselves using various types or forms of deceptions. The analysis by Frijns (2005) identifies four different kinds of deceptions namely exaggeration, falsification, equivocation and omission. Partners in a new form of relationship may find themselves exaggerating issues by overstating or inflating certain statements that are principally true. In other situations, deception in interpersonal communication may make two people in a communication to engage in falsification where they are likely to issue fabricated or false statements to each other as though they are factual. In some instances during communicative engagements people decide to exercise an equivocation form of deception keeping secrets, withholding crucial information, giving ambiguous or vague information with the objective of creating a false impression. Whenever some consequential detains or components of information are deliberately left out, it implies that omission is involved as a form of deception. In certain situations, people find it more convenient and common to conceal factual information than telling outright lies (Blackmon, 2012).
There are several ways through which people could conceal factual information such as avoiding participating in communication of subjects that are likely to expose certain undesired truths. Whenever a person is requested to respond to a direct question that requires him or her to speak the truth he or she may give equivocal support which involves trying to evade the question ( Dulek & Campbell, 2014). Engagement in an outright deception of telling of lies by people, who are parties to a close relationship, may eventually require them to take part in telling supplemental lies as a way of maintaining and concealing the initial lie. Studies have indicated that being in a close relationship could play a significant role in ensuring that an individual acquires better skills in detecting lies. However, closeness in a relationship could result in the interpersonal communication being conducted between individuals with little regard for truth at the expense of working towards the protection of that particular relationship ( Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). This implies that some partners might use deception intentionally during their communication to avoid talking about certain issues that might lead to the discovery of a lie. In most cases, people who are involved in close relationships are biased regarding thinking positively about their partners thereby predisposing to believing their partners even when they are telling lies.
Conclusion
Based on the evaluation of the various aspects and perspectives around the dark side of an interpersonal relationship, it is worth noting that some positive effects could be achieved by embracing the brighter side. Essentially, the positive effect of not operating in avoidance, keeping secrets, and acting in deception could result in relationships, marriages, or friendships being effective and long-lasting as well as preventing unnecessary hurting to one another. If people uphold honesty and transparency right from the beginning of the relationship, they would not to be deceptive or withhold the truth from their partners later even later in the course of their relationships. It is clear that the absence of secrecy and deception in a relationship could form part of crucial considerations towards the building of healthy, strong and effective relationships between people. In the case of partners of couples, secrecy, deception or avoidance would appear to take away their ability to be truthful, trustful and being confidants to each other. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that it has been established that sometimes people are likely to engage in the dark side of interpersonal communication as a way of trying to avoid hurting their partners protecting their relationship which may be at stake.
References
Beatty, M., Valencic, K., Rudd, J., & Dobos, J. (1999). A “dark side”; of communication avoidance: Indirect interpersonal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports , 16 (2), 103-109. doi: 10.1080/08824099909388707
Bellman, B. (1981). The paradox of secrecy. Human Studies , 4(1), 1-24. doi:10.1007/bf02127445
Blackmon, M. (2012). The dark side of interpersonal communication. Public Relations Review , 20 (4), 395-396. doi: 10.1016/0363-8111(94)90098-1
Dulek, R., & Campbell, K. (2014). On the Dark Side of Strategic Communication.
International Journal Of Business Communication , 52 (1), 122-142. doi:10.1177/2329488414560107
Frijns, T. (2005). Keeping secrets: Quantity, quality, and consequences . Amsterdam: Free The University of Amsterdam.
Kelly, A. E. (2002). The psychology of secrets . New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.
Lane, J., & Wegner, D. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology , 69 (2), 237-253. doi: 10.1037//00223514.69.2.237
Lloyd, S. (2014). The Difficult and Distressing Aspects of Interpersonal Communication: Dark Side or Reality?. Contemporary Psychology: A Journal Of Reviews , 41 (2), 120120. doi: 10.1037/002688
Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. E. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of explicit agreements declaring a taboo topic in dating relationships. Personal Relationships , 5, 191–205.
Vangelisti, A., & Perlman, D. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships . Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.
