Face-to-face communication Impression management

1 face-to-face communication

1.1 self, social identity , social interaction
1.2 cross-cultural communication
1.3 team-working in hospital wards

face-to-face communication
self, social identity , social interaction

the social psychologist, edward e. jones, brought study of impression management field of psychology during 1960s , extended include people s attempts control others impression of personal characteristics. work sparked increased attention towards impression management fundamental interpersonal process.

the concept of self important theory of impression management images people have of shape , shaped social interactions our self-concept develops social experience in life. schlenker (1980) further suggests children anticipate effect behaviours have on others , how others evaluate them. control impressions might form on others, , in doing control outcomes obtain social interactions.

social identity refers how people defined , regarded in social interactions . individuals use impression management strategies influence social identity project others. identity people establish influences behaviour in front of others, others treatment of them , outcomes receive. therefore, in attempts influence impressions others form of themselves, person plays important role in affecting social outcomes.

social interaction process act , react around us. in nutshell, social interaction includes acts people perform toward each other , responses give in return. basic function of self-presentation define nature of social situation (goffman, 1959). social interactions role governed. each person has role play, , interaction proceeds smoothly when these roles enacted effectively. people strive create impressions of in minds of others in order gain material , social rewards (or avoid material , social punishments).

cross-cultural communication

understanding how 1 s impression management behavior might interpreted others can serve basis smoother interactions , means solving of insidious communication problems among individuals of different racial/ethnic , gender backgrounds.

people sensitive how seen others , use many forms of impression management compel others react them in ways wish (giddens, 2005, p. 142). example of concept illustrated through cultural differences. different cultures have diverse thoughts , opinions on considered beautiful or attractive. example, americans tend find tan skin attractive, in indonesian culture, pale skin more desirable.

another illustration of how people attempt control how others perceive them portrayed through clothing wear. person in leadership position strives respected , in order control , maintain impression. illustration can adapted cultural scenario. clothing people choose wear says great deal person , culture represent. example, americans not overly concerned conservative clothing. americans content tee shirts, shorts, , showing skin. exact opposite true on other side of world. indonesians both modest , conservative in attire (cole, 1997, p. 77).

companies use cross-cultural training(cct) facilitate effective cross-cultural interaction. cct can defined procedure used increase individual s ability cope , work in foreign environment. training employees in culturally consistent , specific impression management(im) techniques provide avenue employee consciously switch automatic, home culture im mode im mode culturally appropriate , acceptable. second, training in im reduces uncertainty of interaction fns , increases employee s ability cope reducing unexpected events.

team-working in hospital wards

impression management theory can used in health communication. can used explore how professionals present when interacting on hospital wards , how employ front stage , backstage settings in collaborative work.

in hospital wards, goffman s front stage , backstage performances divided planned , ad hoc rather official , unofficial interactions.

planned front stage structured collaborative activities such ward rounds , care conferences took place in presence of patients and/or carers.

ad hoc front stage unstructured or unplanned interprofessional interactions took place in front of patients/carers or directly involved patients/carers.

planned backstage structured mdt meetings in professionals gathered in private area of ward, in absence of patients, discuss management plans patients under care.

ad hoc backstage use of corridors , other ward spaces quick conversations between professionals in absence of patients/carers.

offstage social activities between , among professional groups/individuals outside of hospital context.

results show interprofessional interactions in setting based less on planned front stage activities on ad hoc backstage activities.while former may, @ times, create , maintain appearance of collaborative interprofessional teamwork , conveying sense of professional togetherness in front of patients , families, serve little functional practice. these findings have implications designing ways improve interprofessional practice on acute hospital wards there no defined interprofessional team, rather loose configuration of professionals working in collaborative manner around particular patient. in such settings, interventions aim improve both ad hoc planned forms of communication may more successful intended improve planned communication.