User:Yurrp/sandbox

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Copy of Tie Signs for Peer Review Below: 04:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tie signs are signs, signals, and symbols that are revealed through people's actions as well as by objects such as engagement rings, wedding bands, and photographs of a personal nature that suggest a relationship exists between two people. For romantic couples, public displays of affection (PDA) including things like holding hands, an arm around a partner’s shoulders or waist, extended periods of physical contact, greater-than-normal levels of physical proximity, grooming one’s partner, and “sweet talk” are all examples of common tie signs (Morris, 1977, p. 91). Tie signs inform the participants, as well as outsiders, about the nature of a relationship, its condition, and even what stage a relationship is in (1977, pp. 87, 91).

Background[edit]

Origination of the term “tie sign” has been attributed to Desmond Morris, an English zoologist and author, by at least one source which claim's Morris invented the term in 1977 (tie signs, n.d.). However, Erving Goffman is also credited with employing the term in 1959, nearly two decades earlier (Duck, 2011, p. 91). Goffman analyzes tie signs in order to better evaluate social relationships between two people (dyadic), and the way that these types of relationships interact and create a larger "network of society" (Goffman, 1972, p. 188). Claiming to use a more sociological and less anthropological approach, Goffman refers to the participants as both "pegs"(1972, p. 89) and "ends" (1972, p. 188) that are joined in "anchored relations" (1972, p. 205), as well as the way intentional and unintentional actions that are exhibited by the pair reflect the current state of their relationship and their roles therein. Goffman argues that tie signs are "ritual idioms" (1972, pp. 225-226) that contain information as opposed to a particular message, in large part because tie signs are often susceptible to incorrect interpretations. In turn, third party observers tend to look for additional tie signs in order to confirm or deny their suspicions regarding the subjects they are observing.

Morris defines a tie sign as “any action which indicates the existence of a personal relationship” (Morris, 1977, p. 91). Additionally, he broadens and clarifies his definition by including objects such as engagement rings, family pictures, and tattoos, as well as “indirect tie signs” (1977, p. 91) such as a couple sharing a desert after dinner, and “direct ties signs” (1977, p. 91) such as maintaining close proximity to one another, finishing each other’s sentences, and prolonged and frequent body contact (1977, p. 91).

Usage[edit]

According to Morris, many different types of objects and actions can constitute tie signs depending on the context in which they are observed (Morris, 1977, p. 91). The majority of the time, the term "tie sign" is directed toward relational couples, but it can also apply to groups like families and friends. Additionally, "name-dropping" is an example of a non-romantic tie sign (Morris, 1977, pp. 90-91), or "tie statement" (Goffman, 1972, p. 198), wherein someone attempts to communicate to others that a relationship exists between the speaker and the person he or she has named.

Goffman breaks tie-signs into three distinct categories (1972, p. 199):

Rituals: These are inward-facing tie signs between those in a relationship. For example, in a new relationship, where the parties exhibit increased attentiveness toward one another by holding hands, maintaining prolonged eye contact, etc. Ritual ties signs can be subtle or overt, but, although they may be perceptible to outsiders, they are directed inward between the participants.
Markers: As the name suggests, these types of tie signs are more overt and intended by at least one of the participants in a relationship to be interpreted by others that a relationship of some kind does exist.
Change signals: Events like weddings and baptisms are examples of change signals. Additionally, when actions function as change signals, they generally involve a participant in the relationship taking a good bit for granted about the other, or as Goffman puts it, "taking of liberty" (1977, p. 204). For example, handing a partner one's coat or purse without asking is an example of one relational "peg" demonstrating a relationship exists with another.

Dependence on context[edit]

Desmond Morris relates that one of the difficulties associated with understanding tie signs is that almost any action can qualify as one, depending on the circumstances (1977, p. 91). For example, even though holding hands is a common tie sign, there is an obvious difference between a man and a woman holding hands as they stand on the alter at a wedding when compared to a female physician holding a male patient's hand in a doctor's office. Erving Goffman echoes this sentiment when he says, "a tie-sign is in fact dependent on the context for its meaning" (Goffman, 1972, p. 197).

"Liking" someone's Facebook page is an example of tie sign via social media

Use of tie signs in social media[edit]

The advent of social media has created a newer conduit for tie signs. In addition to broadcasting images of a couple exhibiting traditional tie signs like kissing, holding hands, hugging, pictures of weddings, and engagement rings, etc., social media provides the opportunity for other signals such as "liking" someone's page or tagging another person in a picture. Additionally, although observers may not witness the act of "liking" as it occurs, evidence of such actions persist on the recipient's page for others to see over time.

There is some evidence that ceasing to employ social media for relational maintenance purposes could contribute to "alienation and relational de-escalation" (Sosik & Bazarova, 2014, p. 130), while it would not have have been a problem in the past simply because the opportunity to communicate via social media was not an option.

Applications[edit]

Afifi & Johnson[edit]

Walid A. Afifi and Michelle L. Johnson (1999) researched cross-sex friendships (those between a man and a woman) and how the use of tie signs in less-than-romantic relationships differ from the same tie signs when they are used in romantic cross-sex relationships. For example, In Western cultures, hugging as a greeting can be an accepted tie sign for both cross-sex friendships as well as cross-sex romantic relationships. Afifi and Johnson note some differences between sexes in the meanings behind tie signs in certain circumstances (1999, p. 33). For example, women, more often than men, stated their use of tie signs was intended to "express inclusion and intimacy" (1999, p. 33). Afifi and Johnson also suggest that less-than-overt tie signs are often ambiguous even with knowledge of the context and the present state of the relationship (1999, p. 11). It is for this reason that Goffman argues that a tie sign is informative in nature and not a type of communication or language that can stand on its own (1972, p. 226).

Guerrero & Anderson[edit]

Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen refer to the varying frequency of physical and behavioral varieties of tie signs (actions as opposed to objects like rings, etc.) employed during their research of relational stage theories, and the degree to which touch avoidance informs on the later stages of romantic relationships (Guerrero & Anderson, 1991).

Guerrero and Anderson's work supports Morris's contention that tie signs decrease in frequency and intimacy as relationships mature (1977, p. 88). Goffman also refers to this trend as “taking liberty” (1972, p. 204).

Additionally, a lack of touching between an “anchored pair” (1972, p. 205) who have been in a long-term relationship is a common tie sign that signals that a pair’s relationship is in a mature and stable stage (Morris, 1977, p. 88).

Guerrero and Anderson's research demonstrates a marked decrease in touching between couples once their relationship reaches a "stable" stage. The authors' work does not determine whether the decrease in touch after reaching a "stable" condition is no longer needed as much as when the relationship is still forming, or if need, or desire, for public touching is replaced by an increase in physical contact while in private (1991, p. 160), or if it is offset by less overt communications and gestures such as knowing looks between pairs (Morris, 1977, p. 91).

Sosick and Bazarova[edit]

Victoria Schwanda Sosik and Natalya Bazarova researched relational maintenance through social networking including an increasing sense of “staying in touch” and frequency of contact ( Sosik & Basarova, 2014, p. 125). Even while noting a reduction in effort, or "relational maintenance cost" (2014, p. 125) required to maintain a relationship via a social media conduit, the authors argue that activity on an acquaintance's social media page still serves to signal a shared relationship. Sosik and Bazarova also argue there is a hierarchy of signals available including more personal, written comments posted either publicly or privately, “liking” something on the other person’s social media page, tagging the other person when active on other pages, etc. (2014, p. 125). Two differences between an in-person tie sign and a tie sign in a social media setting are first - the potentially greater size of a social media audience, and second - the lingering of tie signs that were generated in the past through social media outlets which, in turn, create prolonged signals to any who see them that a relationship exists.

Tong & Walther[edit]

In Wright and Webb's book Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships (2011, pp. 98-118), Stephanie Tom Tong and Joseph B. Walther explore the use of tie signs that are delivered via social media platforms (2011, pp. 112-113) between people who have both an in-person relationship as well as a social media relationship. The authors examine whether social media activity is additive to relational maintenance between people that are not dispersed geographically and who otherwise have in-person social contact with one another.

Critique[edit]

In Relations in Public (1972), Goffman concedes that his review of tie-signs is focused on Western society of the time. And, specifically to "middle-class American[s]" (1972, p. 194). This is important for a number of reasons, including, for example, something that may constitute a tie sign in the West may not be considered a tie sign in another culture. A "thumbs up" gesture, for example, could be considered insulting or vulgar in some cultures. And, unlike a tie sign, insulting and/or vulgar gestures most often do not convey a sense of whether or not the sender and receiver have a relationship. Afifi and Johnson noted multiple shortcomings with respect to their research on tie signs, including participants potentially creating a "self-fulfilling reality" that could skew the authors' results (1999, p. 34). Guerrero and Anderson's research was limited to public touching, and did not explore differences in the type and quantity of more private tie signs over the same period that public touching declined (1991, p. 160).

Future Research[edit]

There may be some benefit for future research on the effects of broadcasting tie signs through social media, and what impact they may have on relationships. Such as, whether the larger number of witnesses and lingering representation of a tie sign that is preserved in social media might be perceived as magnifying the significance of what is otherwise a seemingly small gesture.

References[edit]

Afifi, W. & Johnson, M.L. (1999). The Use and Interpretation of Tie Signs in a Public Setting: Relationship and Sex Differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 16(1), pp. 9-38.
Goffman, D. (1972). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Guerrero, L.K. & Andersen, P.A. (1991). The Waxing and Waning of Relational Intimacy: Touch as a function of Relational Stage, Gender and Touch Avoidance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 8, pp. 147-165.
Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior. New York, NY: Abrams.
Sosik, V.S. & Bazarova, N.N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 35, pp.124-131.
Tie Signs. (n.d.). In Oxford Reference online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803104617120
Tong, S.T. & Walther, J.B. (2011). Relational Maintenance and CMC. In Kevin Wright and Lynne Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 98-118.