Communication Theory ABCOM03X - Midterms PDF

COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS THEORY COMMUNICATION AS A RELATIONAL PROCESS ALWAYS IN FLUX THEORY AS A SET OF...

COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS THEORY COMMUNICATION AS A RELATIONAL PROCESS ALWAYS IN FLUX THEORY AS A SET OF HUNCHES ​ communication is constantly evolving, influenced by past ​ a theory is not a single, definitive answer but a set of and future interactions informed guesses about how things work IMPACT ON RELATIONSHIPS INFORMED HUNCHES ​ communication shapes and affects the connections between ​ these hunches should based on research, observation, and an individuals and groups understanding of alternative explanations MESSAGES THAT ELICIT A RESPONSE Pepperdine University emeritus communication professor Fred ​ communication is about eliciting a response, whether it’s an Casmir’s description of theory parallels Burgoon’s call for explicit reply or an internal thought or feeling multiple informed hunches: ​ Theories are sometimes defined as guesses—but SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM significantly as “educated” guesses of George Herbert Mead ​ Theories are not merely based on vague impressions nor are they accidental by-products of life GEORGE HERBERT MEAD ​ Theories tend to result when their creators have prepared ​ social constructionist themselves to discover something in their environment, which triggers the process of theory construction SOCIAL INTERACTION ​ our thoughts, self-concept, and the wider community we live SYSTEMATIC HUNCHES in are created through communication ​ integrated system ​ refers to the language and gestures a person uses in ​ relationships defined anticipation of the way others will respond; a conversation ​ patterns emerge HERBERT BLUMER THEORIES AS NETS ​ coined the term symbolic interactionism FINER MESH ​ theorists strive to make their nets finer to capture more of THREE CORE PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM the world, but overreliance on this metaphor can be 1.​ MEANING: THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY problematic ​ humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things THEORIES AS LENSES ​ meaning-making isn’t a individual undertaking FOCUS ON FEATURES ​ Stimulus > Interpretation > Response ​ theories act like lenses, focusing on specific aspects of ○​ the middle term in the chain shows that it’s the communication while obscuring others meaning that matters 2.​ LANGUAGE: THE SOURCE OF MEANING THEORIES AS MAPS ​ meaning aises out of the social interaction that people NAVIGATING RELATIONSHIPS have with each other ​ communication theories help us navigate the complex ​ meaning is negotiated through the use of terrain of human interaction, providing a framework for language—hence the term symbolic interactionism understanding ​ it’s only by talking with others—symbolic interaction—that we come to ascribe that meaning and CREATION AND INTERPRETATION OF MESSAGES develop a universe of discourse CONSCIOUS CHOICES ​ Symbol ​ communicators make conscious choices about the form and ○​ a stimulus that has a learned meaning and vlue for content of their messages people ○​ conveys messages of how we are to feel about and MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS respond to the object, event, or person to which it ​ messages are open to multiple interpretations, depending on refers the receiver’s background and context ​ without symbolic interaction, there’s no shared meaning 3.​ THINKING: THE PROCESS OF TAKING THE ROLE OF THE OTHER ​ individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes 1  COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS ​ thinking as an inner conversation ​ we are all involved in a constant negotiation with others ​ Minding to publicly define our identity and the nature of the ○​ an inner dialogue used to test alternatives, rehearse situation actions, and anticipate reactions before responding; 2.​ MEANING-FUL RESEARCH self-talk ​ Participant Observation ​ humans require social stimulation and exposure to ○​ a method of adopting the stance of an ignorant yet abstract symbol systems to embark upon conceptual interested visitor who carefully notes what people say thought processes that characterize our species and do in order to discover how they interpret their ​ Taking the role of the other world ○​ the process of mentally imagining that you are 3.​ GENERALIZED OTHER someone else who is viewing you ​ Symbolic Manslaughter ○​ a boy who is treated as a nonentity by his parents, his teachers, and other children. Their negative responses THE SELF: REFLECTIONS IN A LOOKING GLASS gradually reduce him to be—nothing. He eventually LOOKING-GLASS SELF collapses and dies in a snowbank for no apparent ​ the mental self-image that results from taking the role of the reason. other; the objective self; me ​ Symbolic Destruction ​ Mead-Cooley hypothesis ○​ a single shooter turns a gun on a group of people and ○​ individuals’ self-conceptions result from assimilating the then commits suicide. In the bloody aftermath, the judgments of significant other authorities discover that the killer was a detached soul I who lived a life of social isolation and alienation after ​ subjective self years of verbal and nonverbal put-downs ​ the spontaneous, driving force that fosters all that is novel, 4.​ NAMING unpredictable, and unorganized in the self ​ can be devastating because the labels force us to view ​ akin to right-brain creativity ourselves in a warped mirror ​ forever elusive 5.​ SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY ​ you can never know your “I,” because once it is known it ​ the tendency for our expectations to evoke responses in becomes your ”me” others that confirm what we originally anticipated ME 6.​ SYMBOL MANIPULATION ​ objective self ​ a real organization of the people… must be rooted in the ​ viewed as an object—the image of self seen in the looking experiences of the people themselves glass of other people’s reactions ​ if the ‘I’ speaks, the ‘me’ hears ETHICAL REFLECTION: LEVINAS’ RESPONSIVE “I” ​ the ‘I’ of this moment is present in the ‘me’ of the next ​ Mead contended that the looking-glass self develop through moment the way others respond to us ​ Levinas insisted that the identity of our “I” is formed by the SOCIETY: THE SOCIALIZING EFFECT OF OHERS’ EXPECTATIONS way we respond to others GENERALIZED OTHER ​ an organized set of information that the individual carries in RESPONSIVE “I” her or his head about what the general expectation and ​ the self created by the way we respond to others attitudes of the social group are ​ the composite mental image a person has of his or her self ETHICAL ECHO based on societal expectations and responses ​ the reminder that we are responsible for taking care of each ​ there is no “me” at birth. The “me” is formed only through other; “I am my brother’s keeper” continual symbolic interaction ​ Levinas said that everytime we gaze at the face of the Other, ​ as the generalized other develops, this imaginary composite we are reminded of our caretaking responsibility person becomes the conversational partner in an ongoing ​ since the “I” finds its identity in responding to and caring for mental dialogue the Other, not allowing the humanity of that face to register ​ “me” as the organized society within the individual puts our identity at risk A SAMPLER OF APPLIED SYMBOLIC INTERACTION FACE OF THE “OTHER” 1.​ CREATING REALITY ​ a human signpost that points to our ethical obligation to care ​ sociologist Erving Goffman described social interaction for the Other before we care for self as a dramaturgical performance 2  COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS COORDINATED MANAGEMENT OF MEANING STORIES LIVED ​ the ongoing patterns of interaction we enact as we seek to (CMM) mesh our lives with others around us of W. Barnett Peace & Vernon Cronen THE COORDINATED MANAGEMENT OF MEANING: A DEEP DIVE ​ this presentation explores the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) theory, a powerful framework for understanding communication and its role in shaping our social worlds MOVING BEYOND THE TRANSMISSION MODEL TRADITIONAL VIEW ​ the traditional transmission model of communication views communication as a transfer of meaning, focusing on the message and its successful delivery LIVED STORIES CMM’S CRITIQUE ​ what we actually did or are doing ​ cmm challenges this model, arguing that communication is a UNKNOWN STORIES dynamic process of co-creation, where meaning is negotiated ​ information that are missing and shaped by the interaction itself UNTOLD STORIES ​ what we choose not to say CMM’S FIRST CLAIM: COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTS OUR UNHEARD STORIES SOCIAL WORLDS ​ what we say that isn’t heard or acknowledged ​ cmm emphasizes that our social worlds are not static UNTELLABLE STORIES entities but are actively constructed through our ​ stories that are forbidden or too painful for us to tell communication ​ the theory posits that individuals, through their interactions, DECONSTRUCTING STORIES WITH THE LUUUUTT MODEL co-create their own social realities and are simultaneously ​ the LUUUUTT model provides a framework for analyzing shaped by the worlds they create stories, revealing hidden dimensions and complexities. This model helps us understand the tensions between our stories M.C. ESCHER’S “BOND OF UNION”: A VISUAL REPRESENTATION told and stories lived 1.​ INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION AS THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY SERPENTINE MODEL: CAPTURING THE DYNAMICS OF ​ Escher’s artwork underscores the centrality of INTERACTION communication in shaping our social worlds ​ the serpentine model visualized the dynamic nature of 2.​ FORM OVER SUBSTANCE communication, capturing the back-and-forth flow of ​ the way we communicate is often more important than interaction between individuals. This model helps us the context of what we say, as illustrated by the understand how conversational patterns develop and intertwined ribbon forming the figures influence the social world 3.​ REFLEXIVITY OF COMMUNICATION ​ our actions have a reciprocal effect, bouncing back to shape us and the social worlds we create STORIES TOLD AND STORIES LIVED: MAKING MEANING AND COORDINATING ACTIONS ​ cmm distinguishes between stories told (narratives we construct) and stories lived (patterns of interaction we enact). This distinction highlights the dynamic interplay between our internal narratives and the external world STORIES TOLD ​ tales we tell ourselves and others in order to make sense of the world around us and our place in it 3  COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS WE GET WHAT WE MAKE: SHAPING SOCIAL WORLDS THROUGH ​ the setting of the conversation COMMUNICATION RELATIONSHIP ​ cmm emphasizes that our social worlds are not ​ include similarity, familiarity, liking, and relative status pre-ordained, but rather shaped by our communication COMMUNICATOR CHARACTERISTICS patterns. Our choices in how we communicate have real ​ include all of the age/sex/place-of-birth/ demographic facts consequences for the social realities we create requested on applications, but they also include personal features that may affect expectation even more—physical MINDFULNESS AND BIFURCATION POINTS: CREATING BETTER appearance, personality, and communication style SOCIAL WORLDS 2.​ VIOLATION VALENCE ​ cmm encourages mindful communication, recognizing that ​ positive or negative value we place on a specific our actions in conversation can create either positive or unexpected behavior, regardless of who does it negative social worlds. Paying attention to bifurcation points ​ Burgoon may have borrowed the concept of valence from allows us to make choices that lead towards more chemistry, where the valence of a substance is indicated constructive and compassionate interactions by a number and its sign 3.​ COMMUNICATOR REWARD VALENCE BIFURCATION POINT ​ label the results of our mental audit of likely gains and ​ a critical point in a conversation where what one says losses next will affect the unfolding pattern of interaction and ​ the sum of the positive and negative attributes the person potentially take it in a different direction brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY of Judee Burgoon INTERACTION ADAPTATION—ADJUSTING EXPECTATIONS INTERACTION ADAPTATION THEORY (IAT) PERSONAL SPACE EXPECTATIONS: CONFORM OR DEVIATE? ​ a systematic analysis of how people adjust their approach PERSONAL SPACE when another’s behavior doesn’t align with what’s needed, ​ invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual anticipated, or preferred that defines that individual’s preferred distance from others INTERACTION POSITION PROXEMICS ​ a person’s initial stance toward an interaction as determined ​ the study of people’s use of space as a special elaboration of by a blend of personal requirements, expectations, and culture desires AN APPLIED TEST OF THE ORIGINAL MODEL THREE FACTORS OF INTERACTION POSITION THREAT THRESHOLD 1.​ REQUIREMENTS ​ the hypothetical outer boundary of intimate space; a breach ​ the outcomes that fulfill our basic needs to survive, be by an uninvited other occasions fight or flight safe, belong, and have a sense of self-worth ​ panhuman motivations Abraham Maslow outlined in his A CONVOLUTED MODEL BECOMES AN ELEGANT THEORY famous hierarchy of needs ELEGANT 2.​ EXPECTATIONS ​ gracefully concise and simple; admirably succinct ​ what we think really will happen AROUSAL 3.​ DESIRES ​ an orienting response or a mental “alertness” that focuses ​ what we personally would like to see happen attention on the violator ​ a side effect of a partner’s deviation and no longer considers it a necessary link between expectancy violation and SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY communication outcomes such as attraction, credibility, of Girwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor persuasion, and involvement SOCIAL PENETRATION THREE CORE CONCEPTS OF EVT ​ the process of developing deeper intimacy with another 1.​ EXPECTANCY person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of ​ what is predicted to occur rather than what is desired vulnerability ​ processed the context, type of relationship, and ​ “gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate characteristics of the others automatically in my mind in levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and order to gauge what they might do forecast outcomes” CONTEXT ​ begins with cultural norms PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: A MULTILAYERED ONION 4  COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS PERSONALITY STRUCTURE RELATIONAL OUTCOME: REWARDS MINUS COSTS ​ onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings about self, others, OUTCOME and the world; deeper layers are more vulnerable, protected, ​ the perceived rewards minus the costs of interpersonal and central to self-image interaction CLOSENESS THROUGH SELF-DISCLOSURE MINIMAX PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR SELF-DISCLOSURE ​ people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their ​ the voluntary sharing of personal history, preferences, costs attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc., with another person; ​ the higher we rate a relational outcome, the more attractive transparency we find the behavior that might make it happen GAUGING RELATIONAL SATISFACTION—THE COMPARISON LEVEL (CL) COMPARISON LEVEL (CL) ​ the threshold above which an interpersonal outcome seems attractive; a standard for relational satisfaction ​ how happy or sad an interpersonal outcome makes a participant feel ​ your overall standard for a specific type of relationship, and it remains fairly stable over time GAUGING RELATIONAL STABILITY—THE COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES (CLalt) COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES (CLalt) ​ the best outcome available in other relationships; a standard for relational stability ​ represents your evaluation of other relational options at the THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF SELF-DISCLOSURE moment DEPTH OF PENETRATION ​ the degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individual’s Outcome > CLalt > CL life ​ surface level - biographical information exchange takes place ETHICAL REFLECTION: EPICURUS’ ETHICAL EGOISM easily, perhaps at the first meeting ETHICAL EGOISM ​ the belief that individuals should live their lives so as to LAW OF RECIPROCITY maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain ​ a paced and orderly process in which openness in one person leads to openness in the other; “you tell me your EPICURUS dream; I’ll tell you mine” ​ a Greek philosopher ​ emphasized the passive pleasures of friendship and good BREADTH OF PENETRATION digestion, and above all, the absence of pain ​ the range of areas in an individual’s life over which ​ “no pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce disclosure takes place certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves” REGULATING CLOSENESS ON THE BASIS OF REWARDS AND COSTS DIALECTICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL EXCHANGE DIALECTICAL MODEL ​ relationship behavior and status regulated by both parties’ ​ the assumption that people want both privacy and intimacy evaluations of perceived rewards and costs of interaction in their social relationships; they experience a tension with each other between disclosure and withdrawal ​ “human social relationships are characterized by openness THREE KEY COMPONENTS OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY or contact and closedness or separateness between ​ relational outcome participants” ​ relational satisfaction ​ relational stability TERRITORIALITY 5  COMMUNICATION THEORY ABCOM03X - MIDTERMS ​ the tendency to claim a physical location or object as our own 6