That’s Not What I Meant

Abstract

Misunderstanding is an integral and unavoidable element of communication. This article links misunderstanding theoretically to message interpretation and conflict, then presents the results of a study that examined relationships among misunderstanding, channel of communication, and three forms of perspectivetaking. Participants (n = 98) responded to scaled items and described experiences of misunderstanding. Results showed that face-to-face misunderstandings are more serious than those that occur in computer-mediated communication. Dispositional perspective-taking, situational perspective-taking, and partner's situational perspective-taking were correlated with features such as frequency of misunderstanding, use of integrative strategies, open communication, humor, personal offense, and communication satisfaction. In about two thirds of the reported misunderstandings, the problem occurred because of the tone of the message, an interlocutor took personal offense, and open communication was used to resolve it. The findings are consistent with predictions concerning perspectivetaking and extend understanding of misunderstanding. Recommendations include examining misunderstanding, especially in CMC, in greater depth.

A Technology-Supported Guidance Model to Support the Development of Critical Thinking Among Undergraduate Nursing Students in Clinical Practice: Concurrent, Exploratory, Flexible, and Multimethod Feasibility Study

“…On the basis of this misunderstanding, the participants may have experienced various restrictions in their planning and execution of daily practice, which could lead to frustration and stress. In line with the suggestions of Edwards et al [ 48 ], the first author (JZ) and the last author (AAGN) attempted several times to correct misunderstandings by having open communication through Zoom meetings and sharing information through various channels, such as email or the Canvas learning management system. However, these misunderstandings persisted to some degree throughout the intervention period.…”

“…Before and during the intervention, there was much communication with the participants and a substantial amount of information sharing. Edwards et al [ 48 ] pointed out that misunderstanding is an integral part of communication and can easily occur.…”

The Effects of Language-Related Misunderstanding at Work

“…To help reduce language-related misunderstanding, other scholars suggest training to boost empathy and engage in perspective-taking (Edwards, Bybee, Frost, Harvey, & Navarro, 2017; Neeley et al, 2012). Such training programs serve to increase liking toward workgroup members who combine standard and hybrid forms of language (Kim et al, 2019; Xie, Liu, & Jaeger, 2021) and help employees celebrate and appreciate the benefits of workplace language diversity (Hoever, Van Knippenberg, Van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012).…”

Understanding students’ academic help-seeking on digital devices – a qualitative analysis

“…This makes establishing a correct mutual understanding (grounding) more demanding in CMC compared to face-to-face communication (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Thus, CMC seems to be prone to misunderstandings (Edwards et al, 2017) and this might apply for computermediated academic HS as well. Makara and Karabenick (2013) hypothesized two major goals for helpees seeking information, namely (1) sufficient help to overcome the problem and (2) receiving the necessary help as soon as possible.…”