6.2 Communication Climate

Do you feel organized or confined in a clean workspace? Are you more productive when the sun is shining than when it is grey and cloudy outside? Just as factors such as weather and physical space impact the way we feel, communication climate influences our interpersonal interactions. Communication climate is the overall feeling or emotional mood that exists between different people. If you dread going to visit your family during the holidays because of tension between you and your sister, or if you look forward to dinner with a particular set of friends because they make you laugh, you are responding to the communication climate—the overall mood that is created because of the people involved and the type of communication they bring to the interaction.

Principles of Communication Climates

Messages Contain Relational Subtexts that Can Be Felt

In addition to generating and perceiving meaning in communicative interactions, we also subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) convey and perceive the way we feel about each other. Almost all messages operate on two levels: content and relational. The content is the substance of what’s being communicated—the “what” of the message. The relational dimension isn’t the actual thing being discussed and instead can reveal something about the relational dynamic that exist between the individuals—the “who” of the message. We can think of it as a kind of subtext, an underlying or hidden message that says something about how the parties feel towards one another. For example, when deciding what TV program to watch, your partner might politely suggest, “I’d like to watch this show, how about you?” The content of the message is about what they want to watch. The relational subtext is subtle but suggests your partner values your input and wants to share decision-making control. The climate of this interaction is likely to be neutral or warm. However, consider how the relational subtext changes if your partner insists (with a raised voice and a glare), “We are watching this show tonight!” The content is still about what they want to watch. But what is the subtext now? In addition to what your partner wants to watch, they seem to be sending a relational message of dominance, control, and potential disrespect for your needs and wants. You might also hear an additional message of “I don’t care about you,” which is likely to feel cold and elicit a negative emotional reaction such as defensiveness or sadness.

Climate Is Vonveyed Through Words, Action, and Non-action

Relational subtexts can be conveyed through direct words and actions. A student making a complaint to an instructor can word their remarks with respect, as in “Would you have a few minutes after class to discuss my grade?” or without, as in “I can’t believe you gave me such a bad grade, and we need to talk about it right after class!” We can often find more of the relational meaning in the accompanying and more indirect nonverbals—the way something is said or done. For example, two of your co-workers might use the exact same words to make a request of you, but the tone, emphasis, and facial expression will change the relational meaning, which influences the way you feel. The words “Can you get this done by Friday?” will convey different levels of respect and control depending upon the nonverbal emphasis, tone, and facial expressions paired with the verbal message. For example, the request can be made in a questioning tone versus a frustrated or condescending one. Additionally, a relational subtext might also be perceived by what is not said or done. For example, one co-worker adds a “thanks” or a “please” and the other doesn’t. Or, one co-worker shows up to your birthday coffee meetup and the other doesn’t. What do these non-actions suggest to you about the other person’s feelings or attitude towards you? Consider for a moment some past messages (and non-messages) that felt warm or cold to you.

Climate Is Perceived

Relational meanings are not inherent in the messages themselves—they are not literal, and they are not facts. The subtext of any communicative message is in the eye of the beholder. The relational meaning can be received in ways that were unintentional. Additionally, like content messages, relational messages can be influenced by what we attend to and by our expectations. They also stand out more if they contrast with what you normally expect or prefer.

You might interpret your partner’s insistence on watching a certain TV show to mean they are bossy. However, your partner might have perceived you to be the bossy one and is attempting to regain the loss of decision control. Control could be exerted because doing so is the accepted relational dynamic between you, or it could be a frustrated reaction to a frequent loss of decision control, which they want to regain. Here, it needs to be noted that the relational message someone hears at any given time is a perception and doesn’t necessarily mean the message received was the message intended. Meaning depends on who is delivering the message and in what context. Cultural and co-cultural context will also impact the way a message is interpreted, which we will discuss later.

Climate Is Determined by Social and Relational Needs

Although relational messages can potentially show up in dozens of different communicative forms, they generally fall into categories that align with specific types of human social needs, which vary from person to person and situation to situation. In addition to physical needs, such as food and water, human beings have social and relational needs that can have negative consequences if ignored. Negative consequences can range from frustrating work days to actual death (in cases of infants not getting human touch and attention and the elderly, who suffer in isolation). Social needs can be categorized in many different ways. For example, one theory states that we are more likely to develop relationships with people who meet one or more of three basic interpersonal needs: affection, control, and belonging. We want to be liked or loved. We want to be able to influence others and our own environments (at least somewhat). We want to feel included. Each need exists on a continuum from low to high, with some people needing only a little of one and more of another. The level of need also varies by context, with some situations calling for more affection (e.g., romantic relationships) and others calling for less (e.g., the workplace).

During interactions, we detect on some level whether the person with whom we are communicating is meeting a particular need, such as the need for respect. We may not really be aware, on a conscious level, of why we feel cold towards a co-worker, but it is likely that the co-worker’s jokes, eye rolls, and criticisms towards you feel like a relational message of inferiority or disrespect. In this case, your unmet need for dignity, competence, respect, or belonging may be contributing to your cold reaction towards this person. When other people’s messages don’t meet our needs in whole or in part, we tend to have an emotionally cold reaction. When messages do meet our needs, we tend to feel warm.

Consider how needs may be met (or not met) when you are in a disagreement of opinion with someone else. For example, needs may be met if we feel heard by the other person and not met if we feel disrespected when we present our opinion. In a different example, consider all the different ways you could request that someone turn the volume of their music down. You could do both of these things with undertones (relational subtexts) of superiority, anger, dominance, ridicule, coldness, or distance. Or you could do them with warmth, equality, playfulness, shared control, respect, or trust.

Because both our own needs and the needs of others play an important role in the communication climate, we will use the following three general categories when we refer to social needs that can be addressed through communication:

• Need for connection: Belonging, inclusion, acceptance, warmth, kindness
• Need for freedom: Autonomy, control, freedom from imposition by others, space, privacy
• Need for meaning: Competence, capability, dignity, worthiness, respect, to matter, to be understood

Relational Messages Are Multi-levelled

On one level, we want to feel that our social needs are being met, and we hope that others in our lives will meet them through their communication, at least in part. On another level, though, we are concerned with how we are perceived; the self-image we convey to others is important to us. We want it to be apparent to others that we belong, matter, are respected, understood, competent, and in control of ourselves. Some messages carry relational subtexts that harm or threaten our self-image, whereas others confirm and validate it.

To help better understand this second level of relational subtexts, let’s discuss the concept of face needs. Face refers to our self-image when communicating with others (Ting-Toomey, 2005; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lim & Bowers, 1991). Most of us are probably unaware of the fact that we are frequently negotiating this face as we interact with others. However, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, many of our social needs relate to the way we want to be perceived by others. Specifically, we not only want to feel included in particular groups, but we also want to be seen as someone who belongs. We want to feel capable and competent, but we also want others to think we are capable and competent. We want to experience a certain level of autonomy, but we also want to be seen as free from the imposition of others. Communication subtexts such as disrespect tend to threaten our face needs, whereas other behaviours such as the right amount of recognition support them. Effective communication sometimes requires a delicate dance that involves addressing, maintaining, and restoring our own face and that of others simultaneously.

Confirming and Disconfirming Messages

Positive and negative communication climates can be understood by looking at confirming and disconfirming messages. We experience positive climates when we receive confirming messages that demonstrate our value and worth. Conversely, we experience negative climates when we receive disconfirming messages that suggest we are devalued and unimportant. Obviously, most of us like to be in positive climates because they foster emotional safety as well as personal and relational growth. However, it is likely that most of our relationships fall somewhere between the two extremes.

Confirming Messages

Confirming messages demonstrate value and worth and generally fall within three categories:

• Recognition messages: This type of message can confirm or deny another person’s existence. For example, if a friend enters your home and you smile, hug them, and say, “I’m so glad to see you,” you are confirming their existence. On the other hand, if you say, “Good morning,” to a colleague and they ignore you by walking out of the room without saying anything, they may create a disconfirming climate by not recognizing your greeting.
• Acknowledgment messages: These messages go beyond recognizing another’s existence by confirming what they say or how they feel. Nodding our head while listening or laughing appropriately at a funny story are nonverbal acknowledgment messages. When a friend tells you they had a really bad day at work and you respond with, “Yeah, that does sound hard. Do you want to talk about it?” you are acknowledging and responding to their feelings. In contrast, if you were to respond to your friend’s frustrations with a comment like, “That’s nothing. Listen to what happened to me today,” you would be ignoring their experience and presenting yours as more important.
• Endorsement messages: This type of message goes one step further by recognizing a person’s feelings as valid. Suppose a friend comes to you upset after a fight with their partner. If you respond with, “Yeah, I can see why you would be upset,” you are endorsing their right to feel upset. However, if you say, “Get over it. At least you have a partner,” you would be sending a message that denies your friend their right to feel frustrated at that moment. While it is difficult to see people we care about in emotional pain, people are responsible for their own emotions. When we let people own their emotions and do not tell them how to feel, we are creating a supportive climate that provides a safe environment for them to work through their problems.

Disconfirming Messages

Disconfirming messages imply, “You don’t exist. You are not valued,” which contributes to negative climates. As such, they are important to be aware of in order to be a more competent communicator.

There are seven specific types of disconfirming messages:

1. Impervious response fails to acknowledge another person’s communication attempt through either verbal or nonverbal channels. Failure to return phone calls, emails, and letters are examples.
2. In an interrupting response, one person starts to speak before the other person is finished.
3. Irrelevant responses are comments that are completely unrelated to what the other person was just talking about. They indicate that the listener wasn’t really listening at all and therefore doesn’t value what the speaker had to say. In each of these first three types of responses, the speaker is not acknowledged.
4. In a tangential response, the speaker is acknowledged but with a comment that is used to steer the conversation in a different direction.
5. In an impersonal response, the speaker offers a monologue of impersonal, intellectualized, and generalized statements that trivialize the other person’s comments (e.g., “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”).
6. Ambiguous responses are messages with multiple meanings, and these meanings are highly abstract or may be a private joke to the speaker alone.
7. Incongruous responses communicate two messages that seem to conflict along verbal and nonverbal channels. The verbal channel demonstrates support, while the nonverbal channel is disconfirming. An example might be complimenting someone’s cooking while nonverbally indicating you are choking.

Supportive vs. Defensive Messages

Another useful framework for understanding communication climate can be found in the six defensive and supportive behaviour pairs proposed by psychologist Jack Gibb in 1965. These six behaviours are, on one side of the spectrum, likely to generate an emotional climate of defensiveness (cold), and, on the other side of the spectrum, are likely to generate a supportive climate (warm). Our natural instinct when we feel threatened is to become defensive.

As a defensive communicator, we focus on protecting ourselves and our interests, which is not necessarily a bad thing because we must learn to stand up for ourselves (ASCCC OERI, 2023). Unfortunately, defensiveness is usually a negative cycle that creates defensiveness in others and causes conflicts to escalate (ASCCC OERI, 2023). For example, defensive behaviours such as rolling the eyes, not listening, making excuses, or blaming others can cause your communication partner to argue back louder, walk away, or blame you back. We have all been in the position before where the more defensive we become, the less we are able to communicate effectively (ASCCC OERI, 2023).

Conversely, supportive climates create more calm and productive communication outcomes (ASCCC OERI, 2023). This allows communicators to better focus on the intent and meanings of messages. The six pairs of supportive and defensive behaviours that Jack Gibb came up with to help provide a better context for learning about and understanding communication climate are the following:

1. 1. Description vs. evaluation
   2. Collaboration vs. control
   3. Straightforwardness vs. manipulation
   4. Empathy vs. indifference
   5. Flexibility vs. certainty
   6. Equality vs. superiority

In the table below, we examine each pair of behaviours and consider their potential outcomes (ASCCC OERI, 2023).

Table 6.1. Supportive vs. Defensive Behaviours

The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse

During the 1980s and 1990s, John Gottman conducted extensive observational studies to understand what made relationships fail and what made them successful (Beel et al., 2023). Although the focus of his research was on couples and resulted in the Gottman method couples therapy (GMCT), his theory can be applied to many other relationships. 

Gottman focused on conducting longitudinal observational studies to identify what couple dynamics and interaction patterns either destroyed relationships or strengthened them (Beel et al., 2023). He established what became known as the “Love Lab,” firstly at the University of Washington and more recently at the Gottman Institute in Seattle, Washington. His research eventually resulted in many new approaches to couples therapy and in his theory called the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. This metaphor describes the counterproductive communication and behaviours that can predict relationship failure if left unchanged—criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. Each “horseman” corrodes the level of trust and commitment in any relationship (Beel et al., 2023).

• Criticism: The first horsemen of the Apocalypse, criticism is an attack on another person’s character, focusing on their defects rather than the actual issue or complaint.
• Defensiveness: The second horsemen of the Apocalypse, defensiveness is an automatic batting away of someone else’s issue or complaint. It is often a response to criticism. Defensiveness is a lack of taking responsibility and accountability for one’s own actions, including an inability to listen and validate someone else’s perspective.
• Contempt: The third horseman of the Apocalypse, contempt communicates to someone else an attitude of superiority, that you look down at them, implying that someone else is inferior, less than, or worthless. Contempt is used to create a position of moral superiority.
• Stonewalling: The fourth horseman of the Apocalypse, stonewalling is a form of defensiveness. Stonewalling means to shut down interaction and stop responding to someone else. Internally, the person stonewalling is experiencing heightened levels of stress and physiological arousal.

(Beel et al., 2023)

The video below discusses both Gottman’s theory and the principles of health relationships.

(Study Hall, 2022)

Creating a Positive Climate

As mentioned earlier, it is important in our relationships to build a positive communication climate. There are a number of ways to create a more positive climate, and some of the most integral ones are discussed below. Some of these strategies have been discussed earlier in the book, but in this case, they are specifically tailored to creating a positive communication climate for our relationships.

Empathy

We have discussed empathy in other chapters of this book, and this theory of empathy is specifically applied to creating a positive communication climate. The concept of empathy has been defined in many ways, and one way to define it is as the ability to (metaphorically) “put yourself in someone else’s shoes”; that is, to feel what another person may be feeling. On one level, this description is technically accurate, but empathy is actually more complex. Our human capacity for empathy has three levels: cognitive, affective, and compassionate.

The cognitive level of empathy involves more thinking than feeling. A more appropriate metaphor for this level is “putting on someone else’s perception glasses”; that is, to attempt to view a situation in the way someone else might view it. It requires thinking about someone else’s thinking, considering factors that make up someone’s unique perceptual schema, and trying to view a situation through that lens. For example, employees don’t always see things the way managers do. A good manager can “see” through employee glasses and anticipate how workplace actions, decisions, and messages may be interpreted.

The affective, or emotional, level of empathy involves attempting to feel the emotions of others. The “shoes” metaphor fits best for this level. Attempting to truly feel what another human feels requires envisioning exactly what they might be going through in their lives. Doing so effectively might even require “taking off your own shoes.” For example, to empathize with a complaining customer, you must temporarily put your own needs aside and really picture what it would feel like to be the customer experiencing the problem situation. Your own need might be to take care of the complaint quickly so you can go to lunch. Yet, if it were you in the problem situation, you would likely want someone to be warm, attentive, and supportive, and to take the time needed to solve the problem.

The third level of empathy is compassionate concern for the well-being of our fellow humans (Goleman, 2006). Feeling empathy at this level motivates us to act compassionately in the interest of others. Examples may include dropping off a casserole for a grieving friend, taking on some of your co-worker’s tasks when they are especially busy or stressed, or organizing a neighbourhood clean-up. At this level of empathy, we sense what people need and feel compelled to help. Most of us are usually able to empathize at this level with people who are important to us.

Strategies for Building Empathy

Although empathy comes more naturally to some people than others, it is a skill that can be developed (Goleman, 2006) with a greater awareness of and attention to the perception process. Remember that perception is unique to each person. We all interpret and judge the world through our own set of “perception glasses” that are framed by factors such as upbringing, family background, ethnicity, age, attitude, knowledge of person and situation, past experiences, amount of exposure to others, and social roles.

Specific ways to build our empathy skills are addressed below. The strategies fall into two categories: adding information to the rims of our perception glasses and bringing attention to the perception process itself.

1. Add more information to our perception glasses

In order to add more information to our perception glasses, we need to find out as much as we can about a situation or the person whom we are seeking to understand and empathize with. Ways to do this include the following:

• Taking in information: When we observe, listen, question, perception check, paraphrase, and pay attention to nonverbals and feelings, we take information in rather than putting information out (e.g., listening more and talking less).
• Broadening or narrowing our perspective: Sometimes we feel stuck, allowing one interaction with one person to become all-consuming. If we remember how big the world is and how many people are dealing with similar situations right now, we gain perspective that helps us see the situation in a different way. On the other hand, sometimes we generalize too broadly, seeing an entire group of people in one way or assuming all things are bad at our workplace. Focusing on one person or one situation at a time is another way to helpfully shift perspectives.
• Imagining or seeking stories and information through books, films, articles, and technology: We can learn and imagine what people’s lives are really like by reading, watching, or listening to the stories of others.
• Seeking out actual experiences to help us understand what it’s like to be in others’ shoes: We can do something experiential like riding along with a police officer or spending a day on the streets to really try to feel what it’s like to be in a situation with which we are not familiar.

2. Bring attention to the perception process

Try taking off your own perception glasses and putting on a pair of someone else’s. Thinking about our thinking is a process called metacognition. We do this by turning our attention towards the way we perceive information and how that perception makes us feel. What factors make up the “rims” of our glasses, and how do these factors shape our perspectives, thoughts, feelings, and actions? Consider what makes another person unique, and what rim factors may influence the person’s perspectives and feelings. We should try to see the situation through those glasses, inferring how unique perceptual schemata might shape the others person’s emotions and actions. Remember, though, that we can never be certain how or why people do what they do—only they know for sure. But communication can be more effective if we at least attempt some speculative forethought before we act or react. And when in doubt, we can always ask.

Metacommunication

Metacommunication requires mindfully elevating awareness beyond the content level of communication, but also requires us to actually discuss needs and relational messages out loud. Metacommunication literally means communicating about communication and occurs when we talk to each other about any part of the communication process, including what is said or done, how it is interpreted, how we feel, and what we wish had been said or done. For example, metacommunication occurs any time you say, “I feel frustrated when you interrupt me” or “I wish you’d have asked me before you made that decision.” Other forms of metacommunication bring relational messages and social needs right to the surface for discussion; for example, if you say, “When you brought that up in front of my friends, I felt embarrassed and undignified” or “When I don’t hear from you, it makes me think we are not connected.”

Metacommunication can involve any of the skills we’ve learned so far (“I” messages, perception checking, and so on) and can be used deliberately to address our own wants and needs or to clarify our intentions when something we’ve expressed may have been poorly received. It can help us in the middle of an interaction to clarify and prevent misunderstandings as we both send and receive messages. For example, if you notice someone reacting in a way you didn’t intend, you can ask about it (“How are you feeling right now? What are you hearing me say?”), or you can clarify your intent and adjust (“My intent was not for you to feel disrespected. How can I say this differently so that you hear my respect for you?”). We can also respond to the cold relational messages of others with “When you say it that way, I hear not only what you’re saying but an extra message that you don’t think I’m capable” or “Not giving me options leaves me feeling boxed in, and I really want to feel more freedom in this relationship.”

Reflective Communication: Mindfulness

The word mindfulness refers to “paying attention on purpose” and has many uses in personal and work life. For interpersonal communication purposes, mindfulness relates to becoming more conscious of how we encode and decode messages. We can better meet our communication goals with increased awareness of how communication carries relational subtexts, how those subtexts may be perceived to meet (or not meet) social needs, and how those perceptions might result in a warm or cold emotional temperature. As with all communication competence skills, awareness helps us shift from a habitual or automatic state of being and thinking to a mindful and thoughtful state where we put more effort, attention, and forethought into what we hope to accomplish and why.

Becoming mindful of climate means increasing our awareness of the needs of self and others before, during, and after interactions. It requires reflecting on our own desires, thought processes ,and emotional reactions, and with applied forethought, thinking about and speculating about those of others. Learning about relational messages and social needs gives us access to a greater variety of perceptual frameworks through which to view communication; for example, how a message might be received by others. It also requires that during interactions, we observe, reflect on, and attend to others’ emotional reactions and shift gears midstream, if necessary. For example, if mid-interaction we observe that a person’s outward response seems to indicate embarrassment, shame, agitation or defensiveness, we can adjust our behaviour or discuss and clarify our intent. We may even take notice of an interaction after it occurred, reviewing it and considering how well it went or how we might do better next time. Through awareness, reflection, mindfulness, we can build a cognitively complex repertoire of skills, knowledge, and motivation that helps us engage in a skillful dance of communication that attempts to honour social needs.

Climate-Centred Message Planning

Climate-centred message planning (CCMP) is a term coined by Gerber and Murphy (2019). It refers to the conscious encoding (planning and forethought) involved in meeting communication goals. CCMP requires two steps and takes the basics of empathy a bit further into message construction. The steps include the following:

1. Thinking about what we want to say or do: What is our goal? What outcome(s) do we hope to achieve? What message or behaviours are we considering? What needs do we hope to fulfill? What emotional temperature do we hope to create? Which behaviours or message strategies will help us achieve it?
2. Thinking about how the other person (or persons) might hear (or perceive) what we say: Here, we should try putting on the other person’s perception glasses and considering as many factors as possible that affect how the person might hear and feel our message. We should think about whether the message is likely to be perceived and received as intended. If not, we should rethink what we want to say and rephrase it in a way that the other person will be more likely to hear what we want them to hear. That is, we want to convey our message such in a way that the other person is more likely to interpret the message as it was intended.

Remember once again that we can never completely ensure that someone hears what we want them to hear—that is, interprets a message in the way we intended. However, with some awareness and forethought, we can ensure that there’s a better chance of it. The strategies presented here will also give us a better awareness of how what we say and how we say it may impact another person’s relational or face needs. Our consideration of what human beings need will help us infer how they might react to messages emotionally, intellectually, or relationally. Doing so helps us become more competent communicators and build a positive communication climate. 

References

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI). (2023). Interpersonal communication: Context and connection (OERI). https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Interpersonal_Communication/Interpersonal_Communication%3A_Context_and_Connection_(OERI), licensed under CC BY 4.0

Beel, N., Chinchen, C., Machin, T., & du Plessis, C. (2023). Common client issues in counselling: An Australian perspective.  University of Southern Queensland. https://usq.pressbooks.pub/counselling/, licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0   

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Gerber, P. J., & Murphy, H. (2019). 10.3 Frameworks for identifying types of climate messages. In I.C.A.T interpersonal Communication abridged textbook. Central New Mexico Community College. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Interpersonal_Communication/I.C.A.T_Interpersonal_Communication_Abridged_Textbook_(Gerber_and_Murphy)/10%3A_Communication_Climate/10.03%3A_Frameworks_for_Identifying_Types_of_Climate_Messages, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Bantam.

Lim, T.-S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17(3), 415–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00239.x

Study Hall. (2022, December 21). Creating healthy relationships | Intro to human communication | Study Hall [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXV4C3D_EsI&t=580s

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–233). Sage.

University of Minnesota. (2016). Communication in the real world: An introduction to communication studies. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

Image Credits (images are listed in order of appearance)

Kriegsenkel e.V. Herbsttagung 2014 by Andreas Bohnenstengel, CC BY-SA 3.0

Business-conflict by mohamed mahmoud hassan, Public domain

Autism Double Empathy 1 by MissLunaRose12, CC BY-SA 4.0