Exam 2 - Midterm Study Guide
Exam 2 - Midterm Study Guide COM 351
Popular in Intro to Communication Theory
Popular in Communications
This 15 page Study Guide was uploaded by AliciaAXO on Monday September 26, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to COM 351 at University of Kentucky taught by Kevin Wombacher in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Intro to Communication Theory in Communications at University of Kentucky.
Reviews for Exam 2 - Midterm Study Guide
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: 09/26/16
COM 351 Exam 2 Study Guide Chapter 5 Symbolic Interactionism Our thoughts, selfconcept, & the wider community we live in are created through communication Human realties are socially constructed Symbolic Interaction The ongoing use of language & gestures in anticipation of how the others will react A conversation The Looking Glass Self We think about how other people view/think about us The mental selfimage that results from taking the role of the other The objective self; me Assumptions: Meaning Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those things or people Situation or context can change the meaning Facts don’t speak for themselves; it’s our interpretation that counts The construction of social reality Language Meaning arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other Interactions create the meaning that we assign to people The source of meaning Symbol A stimulus that has a learned meaning & value for people Conveys messages of how we are to feel about & respond to the object, event, or person to which it refers Ex: See an individual at a coffee shop, we will treat them as a customer vs. treating them as their profession Thought An individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his/her own thought processes The process of taking the Role of the Other Putting ourselves in another’s shoes & viewing ourselves A process of mentally imaging that you are someone else who is viewing you Minding An inner dialogue used to test alternative, rehearse actions, & anticipate reactions before responding; selftalk Self Understanding meaning, language, & thinking are tightly interconnected allows us to grasp the self Reflections in a looking glass self Society Socializing effect of interaction w/ the perceived expectations of the other The Generalized Other What would another person like me think about my actions? The composite mental image a person has of his/herself based on societal expectations & responses Shapes how we think & interact w/in the community Naming Namecalling; devastating b/c labels force us to view ourselves in a warped mirror SelfFulfilling Prophecy The tendency for our expectations to evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated Classifying Theory Tradition SocioCultural; Language shapes social realities Epistemology Multiple truths (Interpretive) Ontology Free Will; humans as actors Axiology Value conscious Methodology Participant observation, ethnography, naturalistic inquiry, & textual analysis (form of naturalistic inquiry) Approach Interpretive Evaluation: Overall beneficial New understanding of people, clarification of values, community of agreement, and qualitative research Faults: Aesthetic appeal, social reform, & suffers from overstatement (overstates the importance of language) Chapter 8 Social Penetration Theory Social Penetration The process of developing deeper intimacy w/ another person through mutual self disclosure & other forms of vulnerability The Shrek Theory – like an onion Levels: Superficial, intimate, personal, core Assumptions Intimacy Closeness occurs through breadth & depth of disclosure Social Exchange The decision to disclose based on a costbenefit analysis of relational outcome using comparison levels SelfDisclosure: Depth & Breadth of Penetration Breadth (of Penetration) How many topics individuals disclose The range of areas in an individual’s life over which disclosure takes place Depth (of Penetration) How deep we go The degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individuals’ life Peripheral Items Small talk; surface level Exchanged more frequent & sooner than private info Reciprocal Respond to our disclosure w/ a disclosure of themselves Info is exchanged @ similar rate; we want people to match our rate of disclosure Law of Reciprocity A paced & orderly process in which openness in one person leads to openness in another Ex: “You tell me your dream, and I’ll tell you mine.” Degree of Intimacy – Degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individual’s life Penetration Rapid in the early phases but quickly slows as the guarded inner layers are reached Withdrawal Depenetration is a gradual process as areas/layers are closed off Theory Concepts Personality Structure Onionlike layers, beliefs, attitudes, & values SelfDisclosure Voluntary sharing of personal & authentic info that is not readily available elsewhere Social Exchange Relationship behavior & status regulated by both parties’ evaluations of perceived rewards and costs of interacting with each other Rewards and Costs Outcomes The perceived rewards minus the cost of personal interaction RewardsCost The positives or negatives of a relationship Minimax Principle of Human Behavior People seek to maximize their benefits & minimize their costs Comparison Level (CL) The threshold above which an interpersonal outcome seems attractive A standard for relational satisfaction; gauges satisfaction level – happy/unhappy Basically the dividing line Comparison of Alternatives (CLalt) The best outcome available in other relationships Standard for relational stability Permanence: Stay or leave? Assumptions about people Ethical Egoists Claim Maximize pleasure & minimize pain very selfish (why it’s problematic) Ethical Egoism The belief that individual’s should live their lives so as to maximize their pleasure & minimize their own pain Dialectical Model People want both privacy & intimacy in their social relationships Tension: Disclose/ure & withdrawal Territoriality Claiming a physical location or object as your own (an environmental factor) Classification of Social Penetration Theory: Tradition: SocioPsychological Epistemology: Single T truth Ontology: Humans as reactors Law of reciprocity, Minimax Principle, & free will Axiology: Value Neutral Methodology: Quantitative (survey research) Approach: Objective (tries to predict & explain) Chapter 11 Relational Dialectics Social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay b/w contrary or opposing tendencies Relationships are organized around dialects Interdependent Tensions What shapes out relationship Produced & Reproduced enacted through communication Dialogues: Conversations that define & redefine relationships Communication that is constitutive, always influx, & capable of achieving aesthetic moments Constitutive Dialogue Communication that creates, sustains, & alters relationships & the social world; Social Construction Dialectical Flux The complexity of close relationships The unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate nature of personal relationships Conversational Strategies for Responding to Relational Dialectics Spiraling Inversion Switching back & fourth b/w 2 contrasting voices, responding to 1 then the other Segmentation A compartmentalizing tactic by which partners isolate different aspects of their relationship Dialectical Tensions that Affect Relationships Tensions Integration/Separation, Stability/Change, Expression/NonExpression Internal Dialectics Ongoing tensions played out w/in a relationship (b/w relationship partners) Connectedness/Separatedness, Certainty/Uncertainty, Openness/Closedness External Dialectics Ongoing tensions b/w a couple & their community Inclusion/Seclusion, Conventionality/Uniqueness, Revelation/Concealment Coping with Tension Denial Ignore the other Disorientation Unable to confront their problems Segmentation Pick specific parts of your life to set certain nondisclosure rules Balance (dialectical tensions) Integration Accept opposing forces w/o trying to diminish them Alternation Share a lot, then a little Utility of Relational Dialectics (why is matters) Marital & dating relationships Abuse & long distance Other relationships Parentchild, extended family, friends roomates Metacommunication Communication about communication Can be used to reinforce satisfying aspects & deter unsatisfying aspects Ex: “I appreciate it when you..” & “I feel unwanted when you..” Consequentialist Ethics Judging actions solely on the basis of their beneficial or harmful outcomes Principle of Veracity Truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special circumstances that overcome the negative weight Classification of Relational Dialectics Theory Tradition: Phenomenological Epistemology: Multiple Truths Ontology: Free will Axiology: Value laden Methodology: Qualitative (interviews, conversations) Approach: Interpretive Evaluation Overall beneficial Only faults are: clarification of values & aesthetic appeal Chapter 12 Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM) How we manage our privacy Privacy Management Maintaining confidential/secret info in order to enhance autonomy or minimize vulnerability 5 Principles of Privacy Management People believe they own & have a right to control their private info People control their private info through the use of personal privacy rules When others are told/given access to a person’s private info, they become co owners of that info Coowners of private info need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others When coowners of private info don’t effectively negotiate & follow mutually held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is likely the result A description of a privacy management system that has 3 parts: Privacy Ownership Our privacy boundaries that encompass info we have but others don’t know A metaphor to show how people think of the borders b/w private & public info Privacy Control Our decision to share private info w/ another person Privacy Turbulence Managing private info doesn’t go the way we expected The turmoil that erupts when rules are broken Ownership & Control of Private Information People believe they own & have a right to control their private information The content of potential disclosures; info that can be owned Disclosure of private info does NOT = selfdisclosure You can disclose other people’s private info Privacy The feeling that one has the right to own private info *Ownership conveys both rights & obligations Rules for Concealing & Revealing People control their private info through the use of personal privacy rules RuleBased Theory A theory that assumes we can best understand people’s freely chosen actions if we study the system of rules they use to interpret & manage their lives 5 Factors that Influence Rules Culture: Differs on the value of openness & disclosure Gender: All genders disclose more to women Motivation: Attraction & liking Why you tell/ share the info Interpret motives that can loosen privacy boundaries Context: Where we tell the info Traumatic events can temporarily/permanently disrupt the influence of culture, gender, & motives Risk/Benefit Ratio: Reveal & conceal private info We think about this before telling (High factors) Disclosures Creates a Confident & Coowner When others are told/discover a person’s private info, they become coowners of info Collective Privacy Boundary An intersection of personal privacy boundaries of coowners of private info, all of whom are responsible for the info The coowner usually feels a sense of responsibility for the info Coordinating Mutual Privacy Boundaries Coowners of private info need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others (managing collective boundary) Mutual Privacy Boundary A synchronized collective boundary that coowners share b/c they have negotiated common privacy rules Boundary Ownership The rights & responsibilities that coowners of private info have to control its spread; who should decide? Shareholder A confidant fully committed to handling private info according to the original owner’s privacy rules Confidant Forms Deliberate Confidant A recipient who sought out private info Reluctant Confidant A coowner of private info who did not seek it nor want it Ex: Walk up to someone & drop info time bomb Boundary Linkage The process of the confidant being linked into the privacy boundary of the person who revealed the info; who else gets to know? Boundary Permeability rd The extent to which a boundary permits private info to follow 3 parties How much information can flow? Boundary Turbulence – Relationships @ Risk When coowners of private info don’t effectively negotiate & follow jointly held privacy rules/if rules were never set, boundary turbulence is likely the result Disruption of privacy management & relational trust that occurs when collective privacy boundaries aren’t synchronized Factors/Reasons: Fuzzy Boundaries Haven’t discussed what can & can’t be shared Ex: DoctorPatient Relationship Intentional Breaches Confidentiality Dilemma The tragic moral choice confidants face when they must breach a collective privacy boundary in order to promote the original owner’s welfare Aren’t always done for malicious reasons but you know you’re breaking the rule Mistakes Critique of CPM Good Interpretive Theory Understanding of People Furthered by Qualitative Research, conducted to expand knowledge of PM Community of Agreement (Ex: Use & abuse of privacy rules) Clarification of values – CPM presents privacy as valuable on its own Reform of Society Healthy relationships are @ less risk when people follow the prevention of privacy turbulence Aesthetic Appeal – Style & Clarity Chapter 9 Uncertainty Reduction Theory How human communication is used to gain knowledge & create understanding Specific to interpersonal relationships Originally applied to the context of initial interactions b/w strangers Uncertainty Reduction: To predict & Explain Attribution Theory A systematic explanation of how people draw inferences about the characteristic of others based upon observed behavior Increased knowledge of what kind of person another is, which provides an improved forecast of how a future interaction will turn out Conditions to Uncertainty Reduction In initial interaction We are concerned w/ reducing our uncertainty about the other & the relationship b/c: Behavioral Questions (actions) How does this person act? What is their physical behavior like? Cognitive Questions (individual character) What are their interests? Who are they? Goal: To reduce uncertainty about the other Figure them out Gain knowledge & create understanding We will be motivated to reduce uncertainty if: Anticipation of future interaction We know we will see them again Perceive Incentives (potential rewards) They have something we want Deviance Acting strange/in a weird way 8 Axioms that create 28 Theorems Axiom – a selfevident truth that requires a no additional proof As verbal communication increases, uncertainty decreases As nonverbal warmth increases, uncertainty decreases High levels of uncertainty increases informationseeking behavior As uncertainty levels decrease, infoseeking decreases High level of uncertainty decrease intimate disclosure Low levels of uncertainty increases intimate disclosure High levels of uncertainty increase rates of reciprocity Low levels of uncertainty decrease rates of reciprocity Similarities decrease uncertainty Dissimilarities increase uncertainty Increase in uncertainty decrease liking Decreases in uncertainty increase liking Shared communication networks decrease uncertainty Lack of shared networks increases uncertainty We know people they know 8 Truths of Communication Verbal Communication Nonverbal Warmth InfoSeeking SelfDisclosure Reciprocity Similarity Liking Shared Networks Coping strategies for seeking info when facing uncertainties Passive Observe from a distance Active Ask a 3 party – someone who knows them Ex: “What do you think about, Katie?” Flawed @ times b/c distorted view Interactive Ask questions Law of Reciprocity I selfdisclose, you selfdisclose Extractive Look them up online; social media Plans Most social interaction is goaldriven Based on goals, we construct a plan for social interactions Different goals need different approaches A plan may be good, but we still need to execute it Vary in Complexity Amount of detail can vary # of contingency plans can also vary Hierarchy Hypothesis When our plan screws up, we are more likely to try to just tweak a small part of our plan rather than coming up w/ a new plan Hedging A way of giving yourself an out if your plan backfires Ex: Humor, Strategic ambiguity Utility & Context Areas Interpersonal: Relationship Development Health Communication PatientProvider Diagnosis, treatment, & prognosis of serious illness Intercultural AnxietyUncertainty Management Theory The Relational Turbulence Model Relational Uncertainty Doubts about our own thoughts of the other person or future of the relationship Partner Interference Occurs when a relational partner hinders goals, plans, & activities Relational Turbulence Negative emotions arising from perceived problems in a close relationship Critique: Objective Theory Makes testable predictions, offers the human need to reduce interpersonal uncertainty as the engine that drives its axioms Simplistic – straightforward Practical Utility linkages the theorems describe are the blueprint for solid relationships Questions still remain about reliance on the concept of uncertainty & his assumptions that were motivated to reduce it Problems: The more you like someone, the less you seek info (axioms 3&7) Are we always motivated to reduce uncertainty? Predicted Outcome Value (POV) Not about reducing uncertainty; about maximizing rewards & minimizing costs A forecast of future benefits & costs of interaction w/ the other Theory of Motivated Information Management We are to motivated to reduce anxiety rather than uncertainty When uncertainty doesn’t make us feel anxious, we won’t seek to reduce it Chapter 14 Social Judgement Theory We judge messages based on our personal attitude scale, & measure new messages by comparing them to our current point of view Rejection, neutrality, acceptance Describes the cognitive structure of a person’s attitude Social Judgment (Involvement Approach) Perception & evaluation of an idea by comparing it w/ current attitudes Link b/w egoinvolvement & perception The Latitudes of Attitudes (On a scale [!!!] Latitude of Acceptance Range of ideas that we see as reasonable/worth considering Latitude of Noncommitment The range of ideas a person sees as neither acceptable nor objectionable Ex: “eh” attitude Akin to marking no opinion/undecided on a traditional attitude survey Latitude of Rejection The range of ideas a person sees as unreasonable or objectionable We disagree Affect our Outlook EgoInvolvement How important to you; things you really care about, or not @ all High Level – important to you; shrinks your latitude of noncommitment “Heavy anchor” – hard to move Ex: Politics, Religion Low Level – ex: where to eat Wide latitude of rejection Extreme positions Contrast & Assimilation: Perceptual Errors Contrast Judging messages w/in the latitude of rejection as further from their anchor than they really are Leads to polarization of ideas Assimilation Judging messages w/in the latitude of acceptance as closer to their anchor than they really are Discrepancy & Attitude Change Step 1: Judging the Message How far or how close a message is from our anchored position Step 2: Adjusting Process If w/in our latitude of acceptance, adjust attitude The Boomerang Effect Attitude change is in the opposite direction of what the message advocated Pluralistic Ignorance The mistaken idea that everyone else is doing it/thinking something they aren’t Practical Advice Select a message that falls @ the edge of the listener’s latitude of acceptance Ambiguity can serve better than clarity True conversion from 1 end of the scale to the other is rare Seek small, successive movements Classifying Social Judgment Theory Epistemology: Singular truth – Objective Ontology: Determinism – this is just how we are wired Axiology: Value neutral Methodology: Experiments Tradition: SocioPsychological Evaluation Overall, beneficial objective theory Problem: Quantitative research can be difficult to recruit participants & assess initial latitudes Chapter 15 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) We can be persuaded through 2 routes: Central or Peripheral Central Route We will look @ the content of the messages; scrutiny of message content Requires motivation (willingness) & understanding (ability) Message elaboration The extent to which a person carefully thinks about an issuerelevant argument contained in a persuasive communication Central Processing leads to change Long term, strong attitude change Requires consumer/person to think Ex: Car shopping – Preresearch Peripheral Route Mental shortcuts A mental shortcut process that accepts/rejects a message based on irrelevant cues as opposed to actively thinking about the issue Uses heuristic cues Authority/credibility, source attractiveness/liking, perceived similarity, consistency, reciprocation, social proof, scarcity Rewards linked to agreement w/ the advocate’s position Traditional Inducements: Food, Sex, & Money Ex: Sex sells – attractive/credible spokesperson as brand representative Peripheral Processing leads to change Short term, weak attitude Susceptible to being undone Ex: Car Shopping – Go to the dealer & ask what to buy Peripheral Power Importance of role models for persuasion By associating messages w/ credible people, attitude change can happen Variables to promote mindless acceptance Motivation for elaboration: is it worth the effort? Need for Cognition Desire for cognitive clarity; an enjoyment of thinking through ideas even when they aren’t personally relevant Ability for elaboration: can they do it? IssueRelevant Thinking requires concentration Distractions are disruptions Type of Elaboration Biased Elaboration TopDown thinking in which predetermined conclusions color the supporting data Objective Elaboration BottomUp thinking in which facts are scrutinized w/o bias Seeking the truth wherever it might lead Elaborated Arguments Strong Arguments Claims that generate favorable thoughts when examined The enhanced thinking of those who respond favorably will cause their change in position to persist over time, resist counterpersuasion, & predict future behavior “The Triple Crown” of interpersonal influence Weak Arguments Guaranteed to offend the sensibilities of anyone who thinks about it Cause the Boomerang Effect Long lasting, defy others efforts to change it, & affect subsequent behavior Chapter 16 Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Dissonance The distressing mental state caused by inconsistence b/w a person’s 2 beliefs or a belief & an action “Find themselves doing things that don’t fit w/ what they know, or having opinions that don’t fit w/ others opinions they hold Aversive drive that goads us to be consistent to avoid dissonance Reducing dissonance b/w actions & attitudes 3 Mental mechanisms people use to ensure their actions & attitudes are in harmony Selective exposure prevents dissonance The tendency people have to avoid info that would create cognitive dissonance b/c its incompatible w/ their current beliefs Post decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance Strong doubts experienced after making an important, closecall decision that is difficult to reverse 3 Heightening Conditions: The more important the issue, the longer an individual delays in choosing b/w equally attractive options, & the greater the difficulty involved in reversing the decision once it’s been made Ex: The mental turmoil a person experiences after signing a contract to buy a new car Minimal Justification for action induces attitude change Minimal Justification Hypothesis A claim that the best way to stimulate an attitude change is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior Behavior Attitude Compliance Public conformity to another’s expectation w/o necessarily having a private conviction that matches the behavior Counterattitudinal Advocacy Publicly urging others to believe or do something that is opposed to what the advocate actually believes Revisions Logical Inconsistency Beliefs & behaviors that don’t quite add up Ex: “I value my health. My cigarette habits damage my health.” SelfConsistency Inconsistency b/w a cognition & our selfconcept Personal Responsibility for Bad Outcomes (the new look) We experience dissonance when we believe our actions have unnecessarily hurt another person SelfAffirmation to Dissipate Dissonance Most people are motivated to maintain an overall selfimage of moral adequacy Question of Dissonance Reduction Resource: High selfesteem Theory in Practice: Persuasion through Dissonance Interpersonal influence b/c attitude change as an end product of dissonance When your own position tend to bypass the selective exposure screen that othwe put up to avoid threatening things After individuals adopts your viewpoint, an ongoing bond means you’ll be there to offer reassurance when post decision dissonance kicks in To be an effective agent of change Offer minimal justification – just enough encouragement Let counterattitudinal actions be freely chosen & publicly taken Seek to induce compliance Critique Dissonance Thermometer A hypothetical, reliable gauge of the dissonance a person feels as a result of inconsistency SelfPerception Theory The claim that we determine our attitudes the same way outside observer doby observing our behavior An alternative to cognitive dissonance theory
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'