Page 50 - 6688

50
subordinate's willingness to maintain lower status . American military practice, for instance,
requires that the subordinate salute first and hold the salute until it is returned by the person of
higher rank. Observe people of different status greeting one another and see whether these
behavior patterns are borne out by your own experience.
Status differences between members of a dyad affect content as well as communicative
style. In larger social systems those interested in achieving higher status tend to distort what
they say to their superiors in order to create the most favorable impression possible. In other
words, they create a filter through which only the more pleasant information passes. This
phenomenon has been called the MUM effect—from Mum about Undesirable Messages.
No doubt the status filter operates at a number of levels within the federal government.
We also expect this filtering process to exist in all sorts of institutions and businesses—
hospitals, schools, legal firms, department stores. And some of us can personally attest to the
presence of the MUM effect within our own families.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the MUM effect is also present in dyads— even when
two people are similar in status. Each tries to communicate so that he or she either maintains
his or her existing status level or achieves a higher one. And though each enters the
relationship with a certain status, it may change as a result of interaction with the other.
The MUM effect can be thought of as a form of interference. In a dyadic relationship the
temptation to distort messages and thus put oneself in a favorable light is especially great for
the person in the lower-status position. On the other hand, the higher-status person in a dyad
may be aware of sometimes receiving distorted messages. Of course, there is less message
distortion when people communicate within an atmosphere that encourages feedback.

5. Power
Identifying one person in a dyad as the more dominant doesn't always explain which
person wields the power. Power and dominance, as Wilmot (1979) reminds us, are not
synonymous:
One of the more exciting trends in the study of communication is viewing interpersonal
power in relational terms. You do not have power—it is given to you by the others with whom
you transact, (p. 105)
Wilmot is saying that in a dyad, power has to be granted by one member of the dyad to
the other. If I do not accept your authority, you cannot dominate me.
Writing of the feelings and problems that characterize various life stages, one psychiatrist
observes that married couples in their late twenties and thirties "tend to feel too dependent on
each other. Each of us in this era of our life comes to recognize that, in some pervasive and
inchoate way, we have given our loved one's opinion, glances or moods too much power to
affect and determine us" (Gould, 1978, p. 199; Gould's italics). Gould goes on to give examples
in which each spouse feels personal happiness is totally controlled by the other. In an intimate
relationship, this is particularly true during a time of stress or great change. For example, a
long, difficult stint in graduate school or a job change might very well increase the need for
emotional support and thus the emotional dependence on the loved one.
We've been looking at several variables affecting the quality of dyadic relationships.
Power and dominance, which were among the last discussed, are directly related to
assertiveness—and so are the kinds of role conflicts we took up earlier. This relationship
should become clear as we turn to the final section of our chapter on assertiveness training.
One specialist in assertiveness training for women distinguishes between aggressive
behavior, in which you stand up for your rights in a way that violates the rights of the other