Comm89 - All Lecture Notes Spring 2014
Comm89 - All Lecture Notes Spring 2014 Comm88
Popular in Communication Research Methods
Popular in Communication Studies
This 51 page Bundle was uploaded by Kelsey Calef on Thursday October 2, 2014. The Bundle belongs to Comm88 at University of California Santa Barbara taught by Dolly Mullin in Spring2014. Since its upload, it has received 118 views. For similar materials see Communication Research Methods in Communication Studies at University of California Santa Barbara.
Reviews for Comm89 - All Lecture Notes Spring 2014
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/02/14
Communication 89 Theories of Communication Lecture 4114 Course objectives To give you exposure to theories you39ll encounter in the upper division Helps decide if UCSB39s approach to Comm ts with your own goals strengths To help see how comm theories are important in daily life Lecture 4314 Mammoth Skiing incident Example of how an event can be explained or interpreted with multiples theories Theory any attempt to explain or represent a phenomenon 0 Attempt to explain events across always exceptions to rule however 0 We do not know if true or not I Social science only tests theories asks if evidence exists 0 More specifically I Set of concepts and their relationships IE Having attitude about something like enjoying french fries makes you want to eat them but also want to be healthy Theory of intention if you like them you will probably eat them Scholar must define what it means to like something I Informed by systematic observation Either through a direct study or previous research published 0 Pull research together into new theories often I To tell us how and why events pattems occur Causal chains can be studied explained Models can describe minitheories term sometimes interchangeable with theory Approaches to Communication Theorizing 0 Communication applies broadly to many fields but each field has unique traditions and research approaches 0 Paradigm I A scholar39s intellectual world view I About underlying principles that color perspective In uences the kinds of theories we construct In uences methods used to test these theories 0 IE Paradigm of preferring observation instead of cause effect can lead to biases 0 Science Stereotype of labcoats chemistry physics biology etc I Humanities Culture religion feminist studies theater languages english fme art etc I Communication falls around Social Science Blend of science and humanities in many respects Communication scholars 0 Some are social scientists 0 Others are rhetoricians or critics Rhetoric often linked to speech looks like a literature course on speech art of communication not science 0 Some draw from both traditions 0 I Science has a different way of looking at human nature behavior than humanities Scienti c theorizing emphasizes determinism 0 Asks what factors determine what one will do what is the cause of likelihood to behave in certain way 0 Explains social behavior in terms of causes and effects seeking pattems 0 Goal to identify probabilistic laws of behavior Humanistic theorizing emphasizes free will 0 lldentify describe individual choices rules 0 Humanists don39t care about constraints but in critical theories power constrains choice 0 Goal to develop understanding of each unique experience I Personal interpretations of themes in novels etc I For communication researchers uniqueness of relationships fandom etc 0 How do we know study human reality I Scienti c theorizing Reality is out there to be discovered 0 Notion that patterns DO exist can be seen 0 Observe attitudes behaviors objectively without bias 0 Methods designed to control researchers personal biases 0 No one person or scientist is objective important to note I Humanistic theorizing Reality is created and interpreted 0 Researcher and subjects are inseparable 0 One is considered foolish to try to be objective 0 Subjective interpretations important understanding of experience as you see it I As opposed to this is what happens at ComiCon the view is this is how I see it at ComiCon I Neither approach addresses truth 0 I What do we do with researcher39s values I Science Keep values distantj I Humanism Bring values to bear especially critical theories Point to bring view to persuade others to share perception IE Feminism ethnic studies 0 No real reality all point of view as opposed to X y 2 what really happens in world Section 4414 Wii article Older people are interested in video games 0 lntergenerational bonding technology lots of theories at work I Media playing on stereotype of surprise at aged people playing video games I Analysis of article similar to paper assignment Of ce hours Tuesday 145245 Wednesday 300400 SSMS 4114 Lecture 4814 Where do Communication theories t into these extremes Revisiting paradigms Two broad perspectives 0 I Determinism Causeeffect explanations I Objectivity Discover real reality I Keep researcher values distant 0 j I Free will Focus on individual choices I Subjectivity Explore created reality of your subjects I Includeembrace researcher values Where do Communication theories t into these extremes 0 Note on text Don39t worry about 7 traditions in chapter 2 instead look at positivistic interpretive and critical in chapter 3 0 I Covering Laws Theories Attempt to create general explanations that apply widely across many situations 0 Law is supposed to make you behave in certain way 0 In comm a law is something that is supposed to happen called probabilistic laws often 0 Paradigm Very much more in line with scienti c deterministic thinking 0 Typically use quantitative empirical methods to test hypotheses I AKA positivistic approach of testing predictions with data I Examples Cog Diss cognitive dissidence theory URT uncertainty reduction theory EVT expectancy violation theory CAT etc I Rules Theories lAttempt to identify the rules people createuse to regulate their behavior in speci c lindividual contextsl 0 Look at particular social group family office etc see how rules inforrnpressure their behavior how norms become rules gets perpetuated 0 lParadigm Draws upon both I Humanistic focus on choice amp researcher subjectivity I But also science regularities of observed behavior Typically use qualitative methods 0 AKA interpretive approach 0 Examples CMM coordinated management of meaning Structuration CPM Comm Privacy Mitigation I Systems Theories lAttempt to explain behavior as interdependent relationships within a gm 0 Interdependence Like biological ecosystem where animals rely on water for survival effecting growth of vegetation etc I Systems do adapt to change I In comm families studied in this way of everything or person39s actions having an effect on the system 0 lParadigm It depends on the particle theory it can draw from bothl 0 Uses qualitative and quantitative methods depends 0 Examples lnteractional View of relationships Organizational Networks etc I A 4 Type Critical theoriesmethods are purely in humanities which will not be covered here lRevisiting paradigms againl 0 2 Broad perspectives I Science vs Humanism 0 3 types of comm law theories I Laws vs Rules vs Systems 0 Chapter 3 adds 3 more terms approaches to research I Positivistic vs interpretive vs critical methods 0 Which goes with which I Positivistic methods go with laws amp science I Interpretive goes with rules which is part science part humanities I Critical methods are pure humanities doesn39t go with anything else I Systems depends Could go with multiple approaches 0 Theories organize experience I Focus attention on important conceptsfactorsvariables ignore the rest Often reductionistic 0 Means taking complex phenomena from real world and reduce them down to manageable set of factors or principles I IE in biology study of depression would look at physical factors comm would examine depression in terms of relationships affected 0 Theories stimulate and guide research I Point to ways to test predictions I Get modified to better explain the data Process is cyclical 0 Theories gt Hypotheses gt Observations Deduction I Sciencelaws theories positivistic methods quantitative 0 Observations gt Empirical Generalizations gt Theories Induction Grounded Theory I Rules theories interpretive methods qualitative I Systems theories can be either deductive or inductive Difference between deduction and induction 0 Look at where you start if making loose observations have to pull them in inductive 0 If not deductive Lecture 41014 I Example Monty Python Sketch I have a theory TestabilityFalsif1ability 0 Testing a theory if wrong there needs to be a way to show it I Can the theory or its concepts really be put to an empirical test There must be some result that if you got it would show the theory is wrong I lFalsi able Mice only eat cheese Data would show that even a single mouse eating something else would prove this theory false Most theories do not deal in absolutes also not known to be wrong until proof decides otherwise IE Pluto theorized to be planet evidence produced that it does not fit legitimate description of planet so theory is proven incorrect I Nonfalsifiable Beings exist in outer space Just because none have been found doesn39t mean they don39t exist nothing will probably disprove or prove at very best support this 0 For many comm theories can only falsify certain parts I IE Attribution Theory Argues when people behave certain way need to explain it either intemally or extemally Can test the kinds of attributions people make int or ext Theory assumes we have need to explain but can we test this need Would the subject had explained unless asked 0 Cannot really test whether people make attributions on their own Explanatory Power 0 How well does the theory explain the phenomenon I Does the theory specify the causal mechanisms or other reasons for how variables fiti l What leads to this theory I Does the theory explain the complexities of the data I IE Why rob banks 39Coz thats where they keep the money As a theory has low explanatory power Predictive power 0 How well does a theory predict future eventsl I Given certain conditions can we expect certain behaviors Some exceptions like Relational Dialectics IE want to be totally connected to romantic partner but keep own self and autonomy is contradictory and cannot predict only states an aspect of relationships Excellent predictive power in Third Person Effect we think media have greater effect on others instead of self happens consistently is robust but little explanatory power because uncertain why Ideally a theory has decent explanatory and predictive power do not have to have one or other I IE Groupthink only explains bad group decisions afterthefact low predictive power Scope and Boundaries 0 How much about communication does the theory cover I IE Initial encounters only Or relationships over time I IE Effects of TV violence Or mass media effects in general 0 Shouldn39t be too narrow but not too broad that it loses meaning I Would not be asked to make this judgement of scope on exam but criticisms of theories will be Parsimony 0 lHow elegantly simple is the theory I Not JUST simple must also be accurate with complexities but seek simplest ways to explain the most concepts IE e mc A2 I Does the theory account for all the factors but in a nice neat package I Too complicated to be of use IE giving unnecessarily complicated directions Heurism 0 Does the theory stimulate new research andor new thinkingl I Without heurism a theory can be like a failed TV show pilot seemed successful was given airtime ultimately left behind I As opposed to successful show with spinoffs like Cheers 0 IE Comm Accommodation Theory has stimulated study after study since 3970s 0 Once a theory is exhausted lack of new studies about it published Practical Utility 0 How useful is the theory I Some will argue knowledge is valuable for own sake but others need a theory to have real life application IE astronomy or philosophy39s practical utility I How well does the theory answer the so what question I Valuable for people39s lives For society policy makers etc Objectivity can get compromised in this area of eld Good theories don39t have all of these qualities but some or them or a version of them Lecture 41514 What these theories have in common 0 They come from the Social Cognition branch of social psychology I Focus on how people make sense of others and themselves I Such research on Attitudes Stereotyping Impressions etc 0 Combine cognitive processes limitations of cognitive system I IE what happens when too many programs running on a computer can happen with brain mental capacity 0 with those processes with motivation factors goalsneedsrewards 0 to explain how we mentally organize info about others eg attributions impressions etc Conversation A Did you order it B Yeah it39ll be here in 40 minutes A Save me a slice 0 Even though unmentioned we know it is pizza I A schema is A mental structure for representing generic concepts stored in memory General schemas help us know how to behave 0 IE Schemas for doctor visit for restaurants holidays etc 0 Can be elaborate IE relationship schemas I Used to guide encoding organization and retrieval of information Created through repeated eXperiences Do schemas change 0 Relatively stable over time 0 New experiences often activate existing schemas in mind Automatic organization just kicks in happens in media interactions gender etc Need lots of contradictory evidence to radically alter a schema rare Subschemas common Schemas get modi ed through 0 Accretion New info ts with schemas gets added to existing Con rmation bias only attend to info that con rms to existing schemas 0 Tuning New info doesn39t t so either reject info or adjust x schema to t new info Subtyping creating exception category rather than alter the schema 0 Radical restructuring create new schema altogether 0 Stingy with how much thought to put in how much mental effort to spend I Main ideas 0 Humans have limited cognitive capacity 0 Strive to conserve mental effort Example problem Bob is in bar looking at Susan She is looking at Pablo Bob is married Pablo is not Is a married person looking at an unmarried person A Yes B No or C Cannot Tell Cannot tell Do not know anything about Susan But if Susan married would be A Yes If she is unmarried also A yes A Took lots of effort A 0 Use heuristics to process info rules used as mental shortcuts IE Availability heuristic Could not function without them judge frequencies etc based on what easily comes to mind available in memory rather than actual data Some questions 0 Q More likely cause of death Falling airplane or shark attack I A Airplane parts 30x greater 0 Q Claims more lives Lightning or tornadoes I A Lightning I IE Affect heuristic judge based on goodbad feeling emotional response Ex Perception of cup size could have fit more vs over owing Research on benefitsrisks IE something sounds great but could lose feel unlikely to lose because of how great I IE Consensus heuristic based on social climate Everyone else validates can inform IE need to know about a political issue ask knowledgable friend Sometimes bandwagon 0 We process systematically only when we must with conscious thought and effort Why important for communication Helps explain some communicative questions Like gender stereotypes in media What is Persuasion 0 Not just gaining compliance I Coercion threats force bait not persuasion 0 Persuasion involves I Attitude change Change in mental evaluation of something I Social in uences Change occurs because of social agents using communication 0 Main ideas I Dissonance like in music discord is a jarring clash of notes In Theory distress comes from discord between beliefsattitudesbehavior IE smokers continue to smoke but know it is unhealthy 0 provoke dissonance then provide your way to reduce it can also change attitude of dissonance 0 Reducing dissonance Beforehand Try to prevent it Don39t be persuaded by avoiding it to begin with using Selective exposure attention 0 IE Animal charity commercials gt change channel as soon as it comes on After a decision Rationalize 0 IE Did I do the right thing doubts about marriages university choice etc Need reassurance remove nagging doubts Dissonance likely to be greater if 0 Important decision irreversible much timeenergy invested When feeling an inconsistency Example 0 Attitude You feel it39s good to be healthy 0 Belief You believe that ice cream is unhealthy 0 Behavior You eat lots of ice cream Shift the attitude belief or behavior to x inconsistency IE attitude ice cream is healthy enough with calcium belief convince self it is ok to be unhealthy behavior stop eating ice cream Add consonant cognitionattitudes IE this will be the only unhealthy thing I eat will exercise later Reduce importance of cognitionattitudebehavior IE being healthy is good but that39s not all there is to life When minimal justification for behavior gt more dissonance gt more shift IE Feel more dissonance if doing it for worthless reason like as a taste tester as opposed to legitimate justification like Grandma39s bday Criticism I Are we really that uncomfortable with dissonance I Alternative explanation Aronson inconsistence is with behavior and selfconcept e g guilt Section 41114 Office Hours Tues 145245 Weds 34 SSMS 4114 Lecture 41714 Persuasion theories cont 0 Main ideas I Assumes people are motivated to hold correct attitudes Attitude how you feel so how can this be correct IE admitting guilty pleasures that are considered incorrect People vary as to how much they cognitively elaborate on persuasive messages IE how far indepth one will argue how much one thinks through pros and cons Different factors are persuasive depending on the amount of elaboration IA dual process approachzl 0 Two cognitive routes to persuasion I Central route Persuasion results from elaboration thoughtful consideration of argument I Peripheral route Persuasion is result of attention to superficial cuts in the contest heuristics mental shortcuts 0 Occurs along a continuum peripheral lt gt central What in uences amount of elaboration 0 Motivation to process messages I Personal relevanceinvolvement how much you care I Need for cognition personality factor need to analyze all of it 0 mg to process messages I Distractiontime constraints I Prior knowledgeunderstanding So Low motivation ampor ability gt decreases cognitive elaboration gt importance of peripheral cues lt leads to motivationability lt leads to cognitive elaboration from persuasive arguments being more important What factors have been found to be persuasive If centrally processing 0 Strong highquality arguments If peripherally processing 0 Source credibility likeability powerful language 0 Consensus of others 0 Message length lAttitude change From central processing 0 Lasts longer predicts better behavior 0 Resists counterpersuasion From peripheral processing 0 More temporary less predictive of behavior 0 Counterpersuasion susceptible 0 Criticisms Not very good at predicting persuasive effectiveness eg What IS a strong argument Are there really TWO paths CMM applied to persuasion Very similar to ELM 0 Also a dual process model I Processing labeled systematic central vs heuristic peripheral 0 Results for persuasion are similar Key differences are conceptualzl 0 Using heuristics is default to conserve mental effort I Is given for all the time unless forced otherwise 0 Processes are parallel not separate routes can do both at once I Answer to criticism Presenting on assumptions aspect Lecture 42214 Focus The attitudes we g to persuasive encounters matter 0 Our basic position on any given issue 0 Egoinvolvement important personal relevance involved in identity of who you are I Digs in the anchor 0 Example range of attitude positions Gov39t In uence in the economy Far left total gov39t ownership socialism RejectjNoncomAcceptAcceptNoncomReject Far Right complete capital market no gov39t in uence anchor I Many varying attitude are anchored in between more involvement heavier anchor Latitudes 0 We have a range of positions relative to that anchor I Latitude of acceptance Positions close to that anchor I Latitude of rejection If message persuasive very difficult IE get a vegan to eat a burger I Latitude of noncommitmentl Don39t care Neutral 0 Role of egoinvolvement I Can affect all latitudes Getting persuaded involves two steps 0 ll Perceptual judgement I You judge where argument is relative to your anchor I Biases in judgement Contrast effect 0 Tends to happen when you think message falls in rejection region gets contrasted further than it might actually be Assimilation effect 0 Think message is much closer to acceptance than it actually is Matter of pitching message in a way it is read o 12 Attitude Change shifting the anchorl I If judge message to be within your latitude of noncommitment lat of acceptance too depending You shift anchor E your message I If judge message within your latitude of rejection No shift at all or anchor shifts away from message I How much anchor shifts depends on its distance from desired attitude Focus How messages can be used to make people resist persuasion to keep attitude from changing 93 lnoculation make immune to persuasion 0 Metaphor of inoculation against disease build immune system antibodies by being giving strain of virusdisease 0 Ammunition against those who would persuade you Components 0 Threat Forewam upcoming challenge 0 Refutational Preemption Raise the challenges then refute them I Directly address and disprove attacks Messages getting to lots and lots of people TV movies radio Tweets viral intemet meme etc IE War of the Worlds broadcast in 1939 Early Theorizing Injected with media messages Audiences are disconnected masses In uence is 0 Powerful direct uniform Problem No research support basically a disregarded theory among researchers yet still part of pop lore 0 No longer a true theory just background on media theorizing Lecture 42414 0 Researchers found media effects to be mediated by I Individual amp social differences I Selectivity I Interpersonal relationships Focus what people Q with media rather than what media do to people 0 Assumes I Audiences are active I Make media choices to gratify needs 0 Examples of Uses amp Grats research I Identifying underlying motives For TV passing time escaping getting info loneliness etc For Facebook nding old friends maintaining relationships etc 0 Examining how motivesneeds relate to use IE recognition social entertainment needs gt usergenerated online content 0 Examining consequences of motives and use IE usergenerated content gt psychological empowerment 0 Criticisms I Reliance on selfreports of motives I Lack of coherent uni ed theory Focus relationship between individual media system and society often modeled in A shape 0 Adopts Uses amp Grats but adds to it I Agrees with the theory focuses on one use of it 0 For media Expectations for audience members amp institutional constraints 0 For individual Expectationsdemands for media satisfying needs goals Dependence varies based on 0 Individual needs I IE neighborhood on fire 0 Societal stabilitychangecon ict I IE war national story 0 Type of media use I IE social media dependence More dependence on media gt More important media become gt More in uence media have potential danger of effect Criticisms 0 Is there an ideal level 0 What are real consequences Lecture 42914 Criticism of social ills increased l960s 0 TV in every home by now big concem Methods amp statistics got more sophisticated to detect more subtle or indirect effects 0 By 90s internet big concem 0 Now social media I IE interpersonal mass media theories must be adapted massaged Several different areas investigated 0 Socialpsychological effects individual thoughts leam from what you see emotional reaction etc 0 Broad cultural societal in uences exposure to a culture affecting everyone 0 PoliticalPublic opinion in uence Socialpsychological effects In case of rewardpunishment only need to witness it occurring to leam behavior Attention including features of show viewer skills Retention including repetition cognitive rehearsal Production including physical skills selfefficacy Motivation especially expectations for rewards vs punishments identi cation w model Lots of research support used as backbone for huge array of studies mostly for effects of TV violence Limited to shortterm effects on behavior Broad Cultural Societal In uences AMOUNT of TV counts most heavy vs light Heavy viewers display a mean world syndrome 0 Additional conceptszl I lMainstreamingl TV homogenizes viewers Even willing to categorize as far as by genre I lResonance ml Added later bc researchers concerned w testing method due to causation 0 Could be viceversa fear of world is causing more TV viewing 0 Control for living in bad neighborhood causation disappears TV personal experience double dose of violence 0 l I Conceptual problems Fuzziness of de nitions terms IE what does resonance even really mean I Methodological problems Hard to use typical methods All correlational data cannot have causality so I Difficult to test How can this be precisely tested Availability heuristic Watching lots of same thing over is making it more available in memory IE see more murders think of more murders Lecture 5114 Special of ce QA 34pm SSMS 4117 TODAY Midterm All lectures readings through this Friday Not example article used for section exercise Not historybackground of theories in text About 3 questions per theory 45 q39s Don39t focus on term de nitions of book look for overlap For paper use PsychlNFO Googlescholar but log in via school So I Married an Axe Murderer clip super nice police Captain acts like movie cop to please of cerzl How do real police behave 0 Cultivation theory I Perception of being a cop vs reality of being a cop Captain would be considered a light viewer bc his attitude is of nonexciting reality 0 Soc Cog theory I Learning imitating because rewarded with respect enjoys helping his subordinates Captain would be considered susceptible bc he is familiar with archetype PoliticalPublic opinion in uence 0 Main premise I Media tell us not necessarily What to think but what you think about Media are many plural so lots of coverage on one story thus determines thought More coverage stronger the agenda is set 0 Citizen Kane If the headline is big enough an issue becomes news thus important 0 Research support for agenda setting I lMatch press agenda with public agenda Poll for public opinion Correlation problem like Cultivation Theory 0 Dilemma that because audience cares about issue it becomes newsimportant I Time series designs and experiments tool Can see if agenda is occurring over period More recent developments Individual differences and issue differences 0 Some people39s agenda is set easily some set own agenda Control of agenda 0 Journalists themselves e g pack journalism I Now civic journalism of advocacy made to look objective 0 Govemment officials Priming effects 0 ls more powerful bc when issue is made important that is what people use as a benchmark for evaluation Framing 0 Kind of coverage spin bias is discussed Impact of new media eg blogs Twitter FB 0 People do not voice their opinions when they think their views are in the minority Why 0 Fear of isolation l Spiral Role of media We gauge public opinion through media Media along w interpersonal contacts tell us what opinions are popular Those in perceived minority stay silent 0 Seems like majority is bigger than it is 0 Makes even more stay silent and so on lEXception of The hardcore l 0 Always willing to ght even if in the minority POST MIDTERM Lecture 5814 Theories About LanguageVerbal Messages Languages and Meaning 0 Symbolic Interaction Theory Mead et al I Premises We act toward others based on the meanings those others hold for us 0 Can be applied individually or at group level like feeling about mom or group of hipsters 0 Using this meaning as a way to act 0 Can result in SelfFul lling Prophecy making prediction about oneself come true I Believe you will do badly on test gt you fail think someone is boring gt not going to engage with them 0 But how do we acquire that meaning Meaning arises out of social interaction 0 Use symbolslanguage to create joint reality I S1 is more humanistic for this reason belief that reality is created not discoverable I More interested in individual level of experience I Can change the way you act to alter perception of reality I In sociology focus is on societal joint action marriage war trade church worship etc I In Communication focus is more individual conversations etc Can sound scientific but is really more social Meaning is maintained or modified through the interpretive process of Minding Using your mind in verb form 0 Conversation with self ie thought 0 Roletaking is key part I Being able to see things from other perspectives I The Self a dual conceptualization The I the acting self The Me the observing self 0 AKA the looking glass self the self as you imagine others see you I How you are re ected back to yourself 0 Takes into account the generalized other how you think people in general taken together see you I Self concept is a process Acting I roletaking me and interpreting 0 Who you see yourself as depends on interactions with others can alter 0 Like as an alcoholic to stop you must often change your friends because with that group you see yourself as a drinker I Be able to see yourself in way that others do depends on those others 0 Coordinated Management of Meaning Pearce and Cronen I Also more humanistic however did come directly from Comm theories I Some commonalities with S1 I Assumptions Comm is the primary social process of human life 0 Comm is not a tool we use opposed to how it is treated in all other disciplines 0 We live in comm personsinconversation I Is unique in this aspect from all other theories Meaning comes from joint action we achieve in conversation contexts 0 We cocreate social reality similar to Symbolic Interaction in this sense Personsinconversation are engaged in M for interaction 0 Rules for meaning constitutive I Conversation context I For what things mean in conversation IE what an insult is to people with totally opposing styles in that context is a compliment 0 Rules of action regulative I For behavior I Gather scripts to draw upon Can choose to accept a certain reality Tend to fall into pattems depending on context CMM is as opposed to schemas which are stable more scientific more measurable less interpretive 0 Symbols themselves are uid in SI and CMM I Use of lizard brain to understand meaning without thinking can have rapid assessment of situation and respond ignore loops in textbook Lecture 51314 CMM cont 0 Coordination I Process of meshing actions lnterweaving actions and interpretations Both participants feel that it makes sense is a logically sound conversation 0 Can feel weird when this doesn39t happen 0 Making sense does not mean to agree just that each communicator understands what is happening 0 But gt interactions can be coordinated without participants interpreting things the same way 0 Lack of in Monty Python and the Holy Grail Do not let the prince leave until I come and get him misunderstanding I Understanding must be coordinated in conversation steps must be taken like taking tums getting an insult or compliment etc I Book39s examples might say that anytime there is disagreement that there is a lack of coordination but this isn39t true Theories about verbal languageverbal messages cont Language and Culture Theories Communication Accommodation Theory Giles and colleagues Main Idea 0 We adjust accommodate our speech andor nonverbals when communicating with others Assumes that 0 There m linguistic differences 0 Our perceptionsjudgements of conversations are important 0 Language gives information about status group membership Who you are where you39re from generate the way you talk 0 There are norms for accommodation I IE expectation of professionalism in an interview Why shift our speech or nonverbals 0 Improve understanding efficiency 0 Maintain positive social identity I draws upon Social Identity Theory SIT Social identity is concept of self as it comes from group membership all the labels attached to oneself Types of Accommodation 0 Original terms of CAT I Convergence gt lt Shifting toward each other39s speech style I Divergence lt gt Accentuating speech differences I Maintenance No shift at all usually perceived as divergence 0 Current usage of CAT terms I Accommodation versus nonaccommodation What leads to convergence 0 Desire for social approvalliking 0 Desire to gain from those in power 0 Desire to foster shared group identity I Sometimes based on stereotypes or expectations Perceptions of converging speakers 0 Typically positive ratings I Eg con dence liking immediacy solidarity intelligibility What leads to nonaccommodation maintenancedivergence 0 Want to maintain group distinctiveness I Create distance from an outgroup 0 Want to show power difference or control Perceptions of divergingmaintaining speakers 0 Divergencemaintenance collapsed together because if maintaining you are NOT accommodating if your style is unchanging 0 Typically negative reactions I E g hostility unfriendliness Overaccommodation 0 Shifting too much or incorrectly I Often toward your stereotyped notions of a group39s speech I Or what you Q they understand 0 Typically perceived negatively seems patronizing insincere Lecture 51514 Prof office Regular both classes Tues 2330 Extended for 89 paper Tues 3305 PAPER DUE NEXT THURSDAY Critique of CAT 0 Incredible heurism I Applied to intergenerational comm families management policecivilian parentchild doctorpatient etc I Works well with quantitative and qualitative methods 0 Scope I Some fuzziness with accommodation concept different types of accom or accom vs no accom Linguistic Relativity SapirWhorf Hypothesis Two main propositions 0 All higher levels of thought depend on language 0 The structure of the language we use shapes how we understand our environment I Typically used to distinguish different cultures Sometimes called determinist because language determines cognitive processes I If language determines perception can we change perception by changing language IE idea of many words for one concept or words for concepts that don39t exist in other languages or are difficult to explain and do not have their own word Could introduce concept Problems 0 Not falsifiable I Cannot step inside a person39s head see how they think I Altemative explanations Theories of Nonverbal Communication just the one Expectancy Violations Theory Burgoon amp colleagues Main focus how we react when our nonverbal expectancies are violated 0 There are expectancies to begin with predictions made 0 Where do these expectancies come from I Context Cultural norms settingtask Can be schema based I Relationship Similarity liking familiarity status differences I Communicator characteristics Demographics looks personality comm style When expectancies are violated 0 Behavior gets i increases arousal Need to interpret meaning of it 0 Violation valence pos or neg evaluation I When are violations positive vs negative If there is a social consensus about the behavior 0 Socially positive behavior gt positive evaluation from doing MORE of it than expected I IE unexpected thankyou wave pos eval I IE unexpected smile pos eval 0 Socially negative behavior gt pos eval from doing LESS of it than expected I IE expected tantrum but didn39t get one positive eval I IE expected obedience but got tantrum negative eval 0 If no consensus ambiguous behavior Lecture 52014 Then communicator reward valence matters Term for what we think of the person CRV is your previous pos or neg perception of the communicatorviolator IE if you already liked someone you would take their violation as positive Unique to particular communicator but general knowledge also can be weighed into rewardscosts Based on likely rewardscosts from the person 0 Similar notion to SocCog IE you think of person as being fun or interesting vs boring or rude 0 IE Or asking for raise from boss need to weigh rewards against costs Rewarding communicator gt pos evaluation 0 IE romantic context more rewarding to receive unexpected behavior if you already like him Negativepunishing communicator gt neg eval ONLY NEED STUDY ABSTRACTS FOR THE PAPER EVT cont Comments critique 0 Scope only covers nonverbal 0 Requires Adaptation Interaction Theory to explain related topics 0 Lots of research only categorized different types like proxemics eye gaze etc Interpersonal Communication Theories of Relational Development Classical Conditioning Theories Way of looking at relationships Most famous from Pavlov can train a dog to hear bell and salivate for food 0 More about how one can come to like or dislike someone not with an established relationship 0 When starting a relationship with someone you can either start to like them because you experience good things around them Liking comes from experiencing reward in presence of person Disliking from experiencing punishment Person does not have to provide the rewardpunishment Problem 0 Far too simplistic why remain in punishing relationships Uncertainty Reduction Theory Berger and others Focus is on role of communication in initial interaction primarily 0 Some important premises I We desire more predictability in interaction I Uncertainty is stressful I We seek to reduce uncertainty 0 An axiomatic theory I Particular way of formatting theory axiom statement of truth I Axiom highlights High uncertainty gt high information seeking 0 Scientific lawlike prediction More verbalnonverbal comm gt less certainty O Find increased areas of similarity gt decreased uncertainty gt increased liking I Different comm strategies used to reduce uncertainty Passive approach observing others ask others Active approach asking direct questions being clear Criticisms I Is UR the primary concem Or Predicted Outcome Value Predicted sense of value of relationship I Support for certain axioms lacking Some things people don39t want to know Hi uncertainty to Hi info seeking depends on situation CAN reduce uncertainty and still dislike someone 0 Theory retorts that if you still dislike you still have uncertainty 0 Bc by reducing uncertainty you should be finding connections Social Exchange and Equity Theories Basic premise Thibault and Kelley O Relational outcomes involve comparison of rewards and costs like economic exchange I Satisfaction rewards gt costs I Comparison Level CL what rewardscosts you think you should be getting or giving Compared to what actual rewards and costs are IE grew up with parents fighting believe that a relationship should be v costly I Comparison Level for Altematives Clalt what rewardscosts you think someone else or being alone would give you Compare ideas of yourself personal actual rewardscosts and what you believe you should get to others IE imagine that with another partner would be getting rewarded more Rusbult39s Investment Model 0 Want rewards to outweigh costs but also about what you are putting in O Investments time money emotion energy etc go into relationships I These are not costs those are what you get back from investment 0 Outcome valuesretum rewards and costs 0 Investments increase commitment 0 Removal of investment gt decline in value of relationship Hatf1eld39s Equity Theory 0 We try to maximize our own outcomes relative to others 0 Compare E rewardscosts with those of the other person in the relationship I Are we both receiving equal rewards Paying equal costs I Can claim relationship is unfair if they are not equal Lecture 52214 Social Exchange and Equity Theories cont Criticisms of these theories 0 Rationaleconomic view of humans I Question that it might be negative to think of having to get something out of a relationship 0 Difficult to test exchange principles I How do we know if people really are trying to maximize rewards I Can ask after meeting a new person if you found talking with them rewarding would want to continue I But are people actually weighing it or just wanting to continue from some other reason assumes we do things to get rewards so whatever people are doing must be something rewarding circular de nition Same thing as saying how do you know she was afraid Because it was sca oes around 9 0 Wouldn39t do it if it wasn39t rewarding circular Social Penetration Theory Altman and Taylor Focus is on role of comm in developing relational intimacy 0 Goal of connectedness 0 Vehicle to intimacy selfdisclosure I Attempt to penetrate layers of a person Breadth and Depth are important 0 Breadth knowledge of many things 0 Depth know a lot about a topic I IE pool surface is breadth depth is below With onion surface layers broad deeper levels personal Degree of disclosure and intimacy dependent upon rewardscosts relates to exch and eq theories 0 IE way to fmd out someone39s name by introducing yourself Intimacy progresses through stages 0 Orientation phase gt exploratory affective exchange gt affective exchange gt stable exchange see text I Differing levels of intimacy capture how well you know each other 0 Not a theory about ongoing relationships but how intimacy is reached 0 Soc Pen adopts Exchange Equity theories to explain why people continue to disclose I Can depenetrate if costs of disclosure are too great Appropriate self disclosure 0 IE My Big Fat Greek Wedding scene Aunt says to new inlaws Now you are family lump was twin fetus on my neck 0 Attempt to build intimacy URT vs SPT What would each say 0 IE Swingers Man tells woman in a bar about breakup she is also getting over 0116 I URT Interpret scene as attempting to reduce uncertainty Observing each other trying to find out more open conversation have yet to reduce certainty exchange jokes use that to segue into reducing uncertainty about his lack of confidence uncovering similarities so they get each other I SPT Interpret scene as attempting to penetrate intimacy Start with only saying hello disclose names reciprocateexchange information discloses emotions about past relationships have revealed something personal not just similarities and connected on deeper level Cognitive Consistency 3alance Theories eg Heider Basic idea Motivated to have balanceconsistency 0 Set up as triangular pattem Attitude Object X Person P Other person O Relationships between each pos or neg 0 Balance P and O hold similar attitudes toward X I If you like it and I like it I should like you I If I dislike it and you dislike I should like you I Persuasion attempts to use IE If Beyonce likes this make up and you like Beyonce you should like that make up 0 In unbalanced relationships pressure to I Adjust attitudes I Or adjust attraction Base of triangle Criticisms of Consistency Theories 0 Ignores strengths of attitudes eg like treated same as adore 0 Doesn39t handle complexity of multiple attitudes Interpersonal Communication cont Theories of Ongoing Relationships Group meeting Tuesday 230 UCEN Lecture canceled 52714 Lecture 52914 Prepare to discuss questions for nal in section tomorrow do theory app LPE studytutor session next week Wed Jun 4 69pm in the Hub GO TO THIS Both comm88 and comm88 Skip Ch27 Face Negotiation Discuss with presentation group Interpersonal Communication cont Theories of Ongoing Relationships Relational Dialectics Theory Baxter and Montgomery 0 Focus on the dynamic tensions operating in relationships I Like elasticity of a rubber band tense when stretched relaxed when together I Speci c contradictions provide rubber band pulling on us I We want it all but can39t have it all how to manage 0 Some important ideas I Relationships are not linear nor stagelike I Instead a process of contradictions pulling us in different directions Not eitheror but active always existing must work through tensions 0 lntemallnteractional Dialectics I Tensions always occurring within a dyad duo Autonomy Connection 0 Want independence to oneself while also being totally enmeshed and together with other person 0 Deal with tension of being own person vs being totally connected 0 Establish autonomy by disagreeing creating space time together apart Openness Protection 0 Freedom to do or say or disclose anything while wanting confidentiality security 0 Takes issue with Social Penetration which states more disclosure gt more intimacy Novelty Predictability 0 Desire for spontaneity surprise whimsy adventuresome while wanting stability pattern certainty 0 Disagrees with URT bc it predicts we seek to reduce uncertainty not that want both mystery and certainty 0 Contextual Dialectics I Tensions occurring depending on the situation one is in Public Private 0 Things you can get away with in close groups that you could not at others 0 Different expectations in places like work from places like home I IE married couples working together or celebrity couples may care whether they are seen as familiar or not Real Ideal 0 What relationships should be like vs what they really are 0 Notion of what a relationship or action should do I IE expectation of valentine39s day dates and gifts 0 Dialectics are managed through communication I Often subtle nonverbals involved create separate physical space but always through communicative processes I When one of these tensions is unable to be managed that is when relationships struggle Communication Privacy Management Petronio Main focus Explaining how people manage concealing vs revealing private info Assumptions 0 Adopts dialectics view of relationships 0 Adopts rules perspective Main concepts 0 Private information I Things you do not want shared things not commonly known about you 0 Private boundaries I Limit on certain kinds of information who gets to be within those 0 Control and ownership guided by rules I Increasingly difficult with social media Privacy rule development culture gender motivation context etc Boundary coordination 0 IE prefacing sharing a secret by securing their con dence Boundary turbulence 0 IE people get upset when their boundaries do not match others like when one overshares to one who is more private 0 Some believe they have higher ownership stronger bond than granted Note See GS for SIP Social Information Processing Theory will be on final but only this reading Small Group Communication Theories of Group Decision Making Functional Perspective e g Hirokaw and Gouran Idea that there are certain functions groups have to fulfill to make decision Comm is an instrument for making decisions A prescriptive theory 0 One of the few theories known as such 0 Like when a doctor gives you prescription with speci c instructions to be followed I Same idea here if groups want to get to decision they must do this I Rare you should theory 4 functions for e ective decision making 0 Analysis of the problem I Understand what you want to solve 0 Goal setting criteria for judging I How do we judge whether we have met our goals 0 Identification of altematives I Know what you can do if first doesn39t work 0 Evaluation of pos and neg characteristics I Spot weaknesses smooth over emphasizes strengths Lecture 6314 Special office hours Jun 9 23pm SSMS 4105 Small Group Communication Theories of Group Decision Making Groupthink Janis A focus on inferior group decisions 0 Truly about major disasters resulting from group decisions diseaselike to have groupthink 0 Some famous disastrous decisions Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961 Challenger in 1986 I Common threads Both groups too cohesive believed in their excellence Highly cohesive groups are susceptible 0 Difficult for one of the members to speak out 0 Especially if group seeks coherence at all costs 0 Often overlook viable altematives 0 Risky decisions are likely Antecedent conditions 0 Causes that come before pushing a group toward groupthink I Cohesiveness structural faults problem with how group is set up eg insulation lack of outsiders inspecting cut off sense from world stress pressure to act etc Symptoms 0 Selfcensorship Similar to media effect of Spiral of Silence only within group illusions of invulnerability think nothing can go wrong unanimity having total agreement is bad etc How to fix 0 Can bring someone else in or assign group member as devil39s advocate Criticisms of theory 0 Explains well after the fact but hindsight is always 2020 0 Does not predict very well particularly the cohesiveness part I Hard to predict when groupthink will go wrong cannot simulate high stakes decisions cannot tell whether higher risks are taken because of cohesion I What would be useful is examining successful decisions or ambiguous situations Hard to defme 0 Alternative explanation polarization I Really cohesive groups end up polarizing toward initially risky or cautious decisions Whichever happens first risk or caution highly cohesive groups will only go strongly toward one ultimately Recent research 0 Groupthink as process not outcome I How do these concepts play themselves out I Groupthink symptoms can be positive under right conditions Organizational Communication Structuration Theory Poole also McPhee Seibold Basic Structuration Ideas from Giddens 0 Like a building or a hierarchy of people but these are v limiting views of structure 0 Rules and resources people use in interaction are considered structures I Rules norms for behaving official regulations etc I Resources money time space knowledge skills amount of workers etc all the stuff needed to get things done I Structure can be considered anything in either sense What is keeping this organization together IE feathers wood metal thread is not bed until it is put together 0 Structures affect social action communication 0 And social action comm affects structures I Could get more resources behaviors can be changed or reinforced IE more money the dept starts wearing suits I Emphasis is on examining social practices not individual attitudes Can be like going viral trends become a thing 0 Applied to Group Decision Making I Groups produce and reproduce structures Through agency behaviorsactivities and 0 Choice to act in certain way actions to take or not take 0 What guides our action is the re exivity Re exivity ability to monitor those behaviorsactivities 0 IE Group has snacks agency to bring snacks but re exivity prevents someone from bringing something bigger than carrots or crackers like lasagna 0 Can tell when rules get violated because group gets awkward I IE Can I do that here Choice to bring lasagna but there is a norm for whether that is acceptable re ecting on this before you behave Rulesresources are the process ml the outcome duality of structure 0 Can affect and be affected by comm 0 Actions informed by rulesresources and help determine outcome Groups can follow variety of 1 to get to agreement 0 Depends on objective factors things like assignment and constraints and group factors who the people are intemal workings Theory does not predict do this do that get to decision Lecture 6514 Jun 9 Mullin office 23 SSMS 4105 TA qna Jun 10 34pm ssms 1009 Need parscore Final question style Which theory focuses on According to X theory which of following is true Example given then which theory All lectures and readings since midterm Organizational Comm cont Structuration Theory cont Applied to Organizational Climate 0 IE like weather a workplace can be warm cloudy stormy overall collective atmosphere 0 Org climate is a collective attitude 0 Structures create and recreate it I Rules norms practices I Must examine peoples behavior in reinforcement of structure Allows for change and stability lntergroup Intercultural Communication Social Identity Theory Taj fel Tumer Relates to CAT in that identities are used to form stereotypes Focuses on relationships between groups esp groups with unequal power 0 When in position of perceived power want to stay there or shift membership to be there 0 Social Identity I The part of selfconcept that comes from group membership I IE categories like gender or ethnicity but not just labels how you think of yourself I Personal identity lt gt Social identity Interpersonal lt gt Intergroup Basis of individual or group membership 0 IE speaking to you as a teacher speaking to you as a person 3 Example Friends Rachel speaks to Ross as friend then speaks to him as a woman to a man then Ross speaks to her as a husband with a wife both as troubled married people which changes dynamic to commiserating 0 Acts as representatives for respective groups terms like you people as a woman to group people together Key propositions 0 People are motivated to achieve i and positive social identity I Need to distinguish my group from other groups different from some same as others I Want to belong to the best groups 0 Compare own with other groups to see how own groups fare SocComp Theory I Matters what is salient at the moment IE as a teacher notice poor teacher representations in media I If positive social identity gt feeling of standing apartabove others I If negative SI gt dissatisfaction individualcollective action Deal with it 0 Individually like distancing self from group 0 Collective in attempt to change perception of group Typical study method 0 Minimal group paradigm Face Negotiation Theory TingToomey Face as in saving face prevent embarrassment 0 One39s projected selfimage in interaction 0 The civilized front presented Negotiating Face 0 Face Concern I Selfface vs otherface I Depends on culture individualistic more concerned w selfface collectivism w others I IE want to preserve own or other39s public image in indiv US ppl are more worried about their own images vs Japan where you would be concemed w family as whole 0 Face Need I Inclusion positive face vs autonomy negative face I How much of either we seek Inclusion pos how much we want others to like us autonomy neg how we want to set ourselves apart from others Different cultures have different face needconcem 0 Depending on culture how you perceive a threat or need to face is different 0 Indiv vs collect 0 Highcontext vs low context Certain acts threaten face eg con ict 0 When you disagree puts you or other in potential to lose face I Different face need and concem gt different con ict management styles IE would be more subtle arguments from someone who values otherface more Profs QA TA39s QA SIP theory Main ideas that CMC can be just as if not more intimate than FtF Nonverbals are not necessary to forming an intimate relationship or rather that they are adapted to CMC Hyperpersonal what comm has established makes communicators want more you can get MORE personal than FtF bc of ability to edit text can put more thought into CMC interactions time to think and compose thoughts only works in text based comm can choose to divulge certain info SI cares more about creating meaning on nonverbals etc CMM focuses more on the meaning itself Symbolic Interaction Dual self I as acting self feels impulse to do action Me regulates actions through belief of how people see you AKA looking glass self can come from speci c person but is more of a conglomeration of everyone you interact with Minding mechanism and ability to process interpreting to understand situation like a converation with self Pygmalion effect is kind of self ful lling prophecy about the way people treat you mattering more than the way you act IE when with people who treat you smart you believe you are smart CMM have to know that there is hierarchy not necessarily what it is Functional perspective do not need to know coding system in reading Face Neg con ict threatens face IE I loved this movie someone says Are you kidding which is threatening other39s face Rules theories the only ones we did the rest are laws CMM CPM structuration are rules theories there are rules guiding these ppl39s behavior All others have been laws theories if this this leads to that different elements impacting each other Linguistic relativity states that you can only think in terms of the words you have
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'