Communication Theory 101 PDF

 A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION THEORY TENTH EDITION EM GRIFFIN ANDREW LEDBETTER GLENN SPARKS DIVISION ONE Overview CHAPTER 1. Launching Your Study of Communication Theory CHAPTER 2. Talk About Theory CHAPTER 3. Weighing the Words...

 A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION THEORY TENTH EDITION EM GRIFFIN ANDREW LEDBETTER GLENN SPARKS DIVISION ONE Overview CHAPTER 1. Launching Your Study of Communication Theory CHAPTER 2. Talk About Theory CHAPTER 3. Weighing the Words CHAPTER 4. Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory) CHAPTER 1 Launching Your Study of Communication Theory This is a book about theories—communication theories. After that statement you may already be stifling a yawn. Many college students, after all, regard theory as obscure, dull, and irrelevant. People outside the classroom are even less charitable. An aircraft mechanic once chided a professor: “You academic types are all alike. Your heads are crammed so full of theory, you wouldn’t know which end of a socket wrench to grab. Any plane you touched would crash and burn. All Ph.D. stands for is ‘piled higher and deeper.’” The mechanic could be right. Yet it’s ironic that even in the process of knocking theory, he resorts to his own theory of cognitive overload to explain what he sees as the mechanical stupidity of scholars. As authors of this book, we appreciate his desire to make sense of his world. Here’s a man who spends a hunk of his life making sure that planes stay safely in the air until pilots are ready to land. When we really care about something, we should seek to answer the why and what if questions that always emerge. That was the message Em heard from University of Arizona communication theorist Judee Burgoon when he talked with her in our series of interviews, Conversations with Communication Theorists.1 If we care about the fascinating subject of communication, she suggested, we’ve got to “do theory.” WHAT IS A THEORY AND WHAT DOES IT DO? In previous editions we used theory as “an umbrella term for all careful, systematic, and self-conscious discussion and analysis of communication phenomena,” a defi- nition offered by the late University of Minnesota communication professor Ernest Bormann.2 We like this definition because it’s general enough to cover the diverse theories presented in this book. Yet the description is so broad that it doesn’t give us any direction on how we might construct a theory, nor does it offer a way to figure out when thoughts or statements about communication haven’t attained that status. If we call any idea a “theory,” does saying it’s so make it so? In Em’s discussion with Judee Burgoon, she suggested that a theory is nothing more than a “set of systematic hunches about the way things operate.”3 Since Burgoon is one of the most frequently cited scholars in the communication discipline, he was intrigued by her unexpected use of the nontechnical term hunch. Would it 2  CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY 3 “It’s just a theory, but perhaps it’s their opposable thumbs that makes them crazy.” ©Charles Barsotti/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank therefore be legitimate to entitle the book you’re reading Communication Hunches? She assured Em that it would, quickly adding that they should be “informed hunches.” So for Burgoon, a theory consists of a set of systematic, informed hunches about the way things work. In the rest of this section, we’ll examine the three key features of Burgoon’s notion of a theory. First, we’ll focus on the idea that theory consists of a set of hunches. But a set of hunches is only a starting point. Second, we’ll discuss what it means to say that those hunches have to be informed. Last, we’ll highlight the notion that the hunches have to be systematic. Let’s look briefly at the meaning of each of these core concepts of theory. A Set of Hunches If a theory is a set of hunches, it means we aren’t yet sure we have the answer. When there’s no puzzle to be solved or the explanation is obvious, there’s no need to develop a theory. Theories always involve an element of speculation, or conjec- ture. Being a theorist is risky business because theories go beyond accepted wisdom. Once you become a theorist, you probably hope that all thinking people will even- tually embrace the trial balloon you’ve launched. When you first float your theory, however, it’s definitely in the hunch category. Theory By referring to a plural “set of hunches” rather than a single “hunch,” Burgoon A set of systematic, makes it clear that a theory is not just one inspired thought or an isolated idea. The informed hunches about dog in the cartoon above may be quite sure that all humans are crazy. But, despite the way things work. what the pup says, that isolated conviction isn’t really a theory. To become one, it would have to go further. For example, good theories define their key terms, so we might ask how the dog defines “crazy.” Perhaps the hound would say he thinks his owner is crazy because she shows no interest in eating puppy chow and insists that 4 OVERVIEW her dogs stay off the furniture. That definition may be debatable, but at least it begins to flesh out the dog’s initial hunch. A theory will also give some indication of scope. Are some humans crazier than others? Apes and giant pandas have opposable thumbs too. Are they just as crazy? Theory construction involves multiple hunches. Informed Hunches For Burgoon, it’s not enough to think carefully about an idea; a theorist’s hunches should be informed. Working on a hunch that opposable thumbs make people crazy, the canine theorist could go check it out. Before developing a theory, there are articles to read, people to talk to, actions to observe, or experiments to run, all of which can cast light on the subject. At the very least, theorists should be familiar with alternative explanations and interpretations of the types of phenomena they are studying. (Little doggie, could it be that animals who bark at passing cars are actually the crazy ones?) Pepperdine University emeritus communication professor Fred Casmir’s descrip- tion of theory parallels Burgoon’s call for multiple informed hunches: Theories are sometimes defined as guesses—but significantly as “educated” guesses. Theories are not merely based on vague impressions nor are they accidental by-products of life. Theories tend to result when their creators have prepared themselves to discover something in their environment, which triggers the process of theory construction.4 Hunches That Are Systematic Most scholars reserve the term theory for an integrated system of concepts. A theory not only lays out multiple ideas, but also specifies the relationships among them. In common parlance, it connects the dots. The links among the informed hunches are clearly drawn so that a pattern emerges. The dog’s hunch definitely doesn’t rise to this standard. It’s a one-shot claim that isn’t part of a conceptual framework. Yes, he suggests there’s some connection between opposable thumbs and craziness, but the connecting word that in the cartoon doesn’t really show the relationship between humans’ insane behavior and their anatomy. To do that, the puppy theorist could speculate about the nature of opposable thumbs. They lead humans to eat with their hands rather than with their mouths buried in a dish, and to shake hands when they greet instead of smelling each other. (Everyone knows that smelling is believing.) Humans also use their hands to grasp tools and build machines that sever their connection to the natural world. No other creature on earth does that. If the hound can explain how opposable thumbs lead humans to an artificial view of reality, he’s on his way to integrating his thoughts into a coherent whole. As you read about any theory covered in this book, you have a right to expect a set of systematic, informed hunches. Images of Theory In response to the question What is a theory? we’ve presented a verbal definition. Many students are visual learners as well and would appreciate a concrete image that helps us understand what a theory is and does. So we’ll present three metaphors  CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY 5 that we find helpful, but will also note how an overreliance on these representations of theory might lead us astray. Theories as Nets: Philosopher of science Karl Popper said that “theories are nets cast to catch what we call ‘the world’.... We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer.”5 This metaphor highlights the ongoing labor of the theorist as a type of deep-sea angler. For serious scholars, theories are the tools of the trade. The term the world can be interpreted as everything that goes on under the sun—thus requiring a grand theory that applies to all communication, all the time. Conversely, catching the world could be construed as calling for numerous special theories—different kinds of small nets to capture distinct types of communication in local situations. But either way, the quest for finer-meshed nets is somewhat disturbing because the study of communication is about people rather than schools of fish. The idea that theories could be woven so tightly that they’d snag everything humans think, say, or do seems naive. The possibility also raises questions about our freedom to choose some actions and reject others. Theories as Lenses: Many scholars see their theoretical constructions as sim- ilar to the lens of a camera or a pair of glasses, as opposed to a mirror that accurately reflects the world out there. The lens imagery highlights the idea that theories shape our perception by focusing attention on some features of commu- nication while ignoring other features, or at least pushing them into the back- ground. Two theorists could analyze the same communication event—an argument, perhaps—and, depending on the lens each uses, one theorist may view the speech act as a breakdown of communication or the breakup of a relationship, while the other theorist will see it as democracy in action. A danger of the lens metaphor is that we might regard what is seen through the glass as so dependent on the theoretical stance of the viewer that we abandon any attempt to discern what is real or true. Theories as Maps: A good map helps us understand unfamiliar terrain. It’s designed with a purpose. Road maps explain how to get from point A to point B. Political maps show boundaries between states and nations. Climate maps reveal whether a place is hot or cold. Within this analogy, a communication theory is a kind of map that’s designed to help you navigate some part of the topography of human relationships. In a sense, this book of theories is like a scenic atlas that pulls together 32 must-see locations. However, we must remember that the map is not the territory.6 Like a still photograph, no theory can fully portray the richness of interaction between people that is constantly changing, always varied, and inevitably more complicated than what any theory can chart. As a person intrigued with communication, aren’t you glad it’s this way? WHAT IS COMMUNICATION? So far we’ve discussed theory, but what about communication? What is it, exactly? To ask this question is to invite controversy and raise expectations for clarity that can’t be met. When it comes to defining what it is we study, there’s little discipline in the discipline. Frank Dance, the University of Denver scholar cred- ited with publishing the first comprehensive book on communication theory, cataloged more than 120 definitions of communication—and that was 50 years ago.7 Communication scholars have suggested many more since then, yet no 6 OVERVIEW single definition has risen to the top and become the standard within the field of communication. At the conclusion of his study, Dance suggested that we’re “trying to make the concept of communication do too much work for us.”8 Other communication the- orists agree, noting that when the term is used to describe almost every kind of human interaction, it’s seriously overburdened. Michigan Tech University commu- nication professor Jennifer Slack brings a splash of reality to attempts to draw definitive lines around what our theories and research cover. She declares that “there is no single, absolute essence of communication that adequately explains the phenomena we study. Such a definition does not exist; neither is it merely awaiting the next brightest communication scholar to nail it down once and for all.”9 Despite the pitfalls of trying to define communication in an all-inclusive way, it seems to us that students who are willing to spend a big chunk of their college education studying communication deserve a description of what it is they’re look- ing at. Rather than giving the final word on what human activities can be legiti- mately referred to as communication, this designation would highlight the essential features of communication that shouldn’t be missed. So for starters, we offer this working definition: Communication is the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response. Communication The relational process of To the extent that there is redeeming value in this statement, it lies in drawing creating and interpreting your attention to five features of communication that you’ll run across repeatedly messages that elicit a as you read about the theories in the field. We’ll flesh out these concepts in the response. rest of this section. 1. Messages Messages are at the core of communication study. University of Colorado emeritus communication professor Robert Craig says that communication involves “talking and listening, writing and reading, performing and witnessing, or, more generally, doing anything that involves ‘messages’ in any medium or situation.”10 When academic areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, literature, and philosophy deal with human symbolic activity, they inter- sect with the study of communication. The visual image of this intersection of interests has prompted some to refer to communication as a crossroads discipline. The difference is that communication scholars are parked at the junction focus- ing on messages, while other disciplines are just passing through on their way to other destinations. All the theories covered in this book deal specifically with messages. Text Communication theorists use the word text as a synonym for a message that A record of a message can be studied, regardless of the medium. This book is a text. So is a verbatim that can be analyzed by transcript of a conversation with your instructor, a recorded presidential news others (e.g., a book, film, conference, a silent YouTube video, or a Justin Bieber song. To illustrate the fol- photograph, or any transcript or recording of lowing four parts of the definition, suppose you received this cryptic text message a speech or broadcast). from a close friend: “Pat and I spent the night together.” You immediately know that the name Pat refers to the person with whom you have an ongoing romantic  CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY 7 relationship. An analysis of this text and the context surrounding its transmission provides a useful case study for examining the essential features of communication. 2. Creation of Messages This phrase in the working definition of communication indicates that the content and form of a text are usually constructed, invented, planned, crafted, constituted, selected, or adopted by the communicator. Each of these terms is used in at least one of the theories in this book, and they all imply that the communicator is making a conscious choice of message form and substance. For whatever reason, your friend sent a text message rather than meeting face-to-face, calling you on the phone, send- ing an email, or writing a note. Your friend also chose the seven words that were transmitted to your cell phone. There is a long history of textual analysis in the field of communication, wherein the rhetorical critic looks for clues in the message to discern the motivation and strategy of the person who created the message. There are, of course, many times when we speak, write, or gesture in seemingly mindless ways—activities that are like driving on cruise control. These are preprogrammed responses that were selected earlier and stored for later use. In like manner, our repertoire of stock phrases such as thank you, no problem, whatever, or a string of swear words were chosen sometime in the past to express our feelings, and over time have become habitual responses. Only when we become more mindful of the nature and impact of our mes- sages will we have the ability to alter them. That’s why consciousness-raising is a goal of several theories in this book—each one seeks to increase our communication choices. 3. Interpretation of Messages Messages do not interpret themselves. The meaning that a message holds for the creators and receivers doesn’t reside in the words that are spoken, written, or acted out. Many communication scholars believe that words don’t mean things, people mean things. Symbolic interactionist Herbert Blumer stated the implication of this claim: “Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things.”11 What is the meaning of your friend’s text message? Does “spent the night together” mean talking until all hours? Pulling an all-night study session? Sleeping on the sofa? Making love? If it’s the latter, how would your friend characterize their sexual liaison? Recreational sex? A chance hookup? Friends with benefits? Developing a close relationship? Falling in love? The start of a long-term commitment? Perhaps of more importance to you, how does Pat view it? What emotional meaning is behind the message for each of them? Satisfaction? Disappointment? Surprise? The morning- after-the-night-before blahs? Gratefulness? Guilt? Ecstasy? And finally, what does receiv- ing this message through a digital channel mean for you, your friendship, and your relationship with Pat? None of these answers are in the message. Words and other Polysemic symbols are polysemic—they’re open to multiple interpretations. A quality of symbols that means they’re open to multiple interpretations. 4. A Relational Process The Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that “one cannot step into the same river twice.”12 These words illustrate the widespread acceptance among communication 8 OVERVIEW scholars that communication is a process. Much like a river, the flow of communi- cation is always in flux, never completely the same, and can only be described with reference to what went before and what is yet to come. This means that the text message “Pat and I spent the night together” is not the whole story. You’ll probably contact both your friend and Pat to ask clarifying questions. As they are answered or avoided, you’ll interpret the message in a different way. That’s because commu- nication is a process, not a freeze-frame snapshot. In the opening lines of her essay “Communication as Relationality,” University of Georgia rhetorical theorist Celeste Condit suggests that the communication pro- cess is more about relationships than it is about content. Communication is a process of relating. This means it is not primarily or essentially a process of transferring information or of disseminating or circulating signs (though these things can be identified as happening within the process of relating).13 Communication is a relational process not only because it takes place between two or more persons, but also because it affects the nature of the connections among those people. It’s obvious that the text message you received will influence the triangle of relationships among you, Pat, and your (former?) friend. But this is true in other forms of mediated communication as well. Television viewers and movie- goers have emotional responses to people they see on-screen. And as businesses are discovering, even the impersonal recorded announcement that “this call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes” has an impact on how we regard their corporate persona. 5. Messages That Elicit a Response This final component of communication deals with the effect of the message on people who receive it. At the end of his groundbreaking book on communication theory, Dance concludes, “ ‘Communication,’ in its broadest interpretation, may be defined as the eliciting of a response.”14 If a message fails to stimulate any cognitive, emotional, or behavioral reaction, it seems pointless to refer to it as communication. We often refer to such situations as a message “falling on deaf ears” or the other person “turning a blind eye.” Picture a mother driving her 10-year-old son home from school. He’s strapped in the seat behind her playing Subway Surfers on his tablet, equipped with earbuds. His mother asks if he has any homework. Is that communication? Not if he doesn’t hear the question or see her lips moving. What if he isn’t wired for sound and hears her voice? It depends. If he’s glued to the screen and totally engrossed in avoiding subway cars, he may literally tune her out—still no communication. Suppose, however, the boy hears her words and feels bad that he has homework, sad that his mom’s so nosy, mad that she broke his game-playing concentration, or glad that he finished the assignment during class. Although these are internal feel- ings that his mother may miss, each response would have been triggered by Mom’s question and would therefore qualify as communication—even if he doesn’t reply. And of course, any vocal response, even a noncommittal grunt, indicates that some form of communication has occurred. In like manner, surely you would respond to your friend’s cryptic message about the night spent with Pat—even if you give your friend “the silent treatment.” In fact, the text seems to have been crafted and sent to provoke a response. How closely  CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY 9 your thoughts, feelings, words, or actions would match what your friend expected or intended is another matter. Successful or not, the whole situation surrounding the text and context of the message fits the working definition of communication that we hope will help you frame your study of communication theory: Communi- cation is the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response. AN ARRANGEMENT OF IDEAS TO AID COMPREHENSION Now that you have a basic understanding of what a communication theory is, knowing how we’ve structured the book and arranged the theories can help you grasp their content. After this chapter, there are three more chapters in the “Over- view” division that will help you compare and contrast theories—think of these chapters as a bird’s-eye view of the communication theory terrain. In Chapter 2, co-author Glenn Sparks and another leading communication scholar analyze a highly acclaimed TV ad in order to illustrate how half the theories in the book are based on objective assumptions, while the other half are constructed using an inter- pretive set of principles. Chapter 3 presents criteria for judging both kinds of theo- ries so you can make an informed evaluation of a theory’s worth rather than relying solely on your gut reaction. Finally, Chapter 4 describes seven traditions of com- munication theory and research. When you know the family tree of a theory, you can explain why it has a strong affinity with some theories but doesn’t speak the same language as others. Following this overview, there are 32 chapters that run 10–15 pages apiece, each concentrating on a single theory. We think you’ll find that the one-chapter, one-theory format is user-friendly because it gives you a chance to focus on a single theory at a time. This way, they won’t all blur together in your mind. These chapters are arranged into four major divisions, according to the primary communication context they address. The theories in Division Two, “Interpersonal Communication,” consider one-on-one interaction. Division Three, “Group and Public Communica- tion,” deals with face-to-face involvement in collective settings. Division Four, “Mass Communication,” pulls together theories that explore electronic and print media. Division Five, “Cultural Context,” delves into systems of shared meaning that are so all-encompassing we often fail to realize their impact upon us. These four divisions are based on the fact that theories are tentative answers to questions that occur to people as they mull over practical problems in specific situations. It therefore makes sense to group them according to the different com- munication settings that usually prompt those questions. This organizational plan is like having four separately indexed file cabinets. Although there is no natural progression from one division to another, the plan provides a convenient way to classify and retrieve the 32 theories. Finally, Division Six, “Integration,” seeks to distill core ideas that are common to a number of theories. Ideas have power, and each theory is driven by one or more ideas that may be shared by other theories from different communication contexts. For example, in each of the four context divisions, there’s at least one theory committed to the force of narrative. They each declare that people respond to stories and dramatic imagery with which they can identify. Reading about key concepts that cut across multiple theories wouldn’t mean much to you now, but after you become familiar with a number of communication theories, it can be an eye-opening experience that also helps you review what you’ve learned. 10 OVERVIEW CHAPTER FEATURES TO ENLIVEN THEORY In many of the chapters ahead, we use an extended example from life on a college campus, a well-known communication event, or the conversations of characters in movies, books, or TV shows. The main purpose of these illustrations is to provide a mind’s-eye picture of how the theory works. The imagery will also make the basic thrust of the theory easier to recall. But if you can think of a situation in your own life where the theory is relevant, that personal application will make it doubly inter- esting and memorable for you. You might also want to see how others put the theories into practice. With our students’ permission, we’ve weaved in their accounts of application for almost all the theories featured in the text. We’re intrigued by the rich connections these students make—ones we wouldn’t have thought of on our own. Some students draw on scenes from short stories, novels, or movies. To see an annotated list of feature film scenes that illustrate the theories, go to the book’s website, www.afirstlook. com, and under Theory Resources, click on Suggested Movie Clips. As co-authors of this book, the three of us (Em, Andrew, and Glenn) will draw upon our life experiences as well. We’ve been professional colleagues for years and are close friends, so we’d like that warmth to extend to readers by writing in a direct, personal voice. In the first four chapters, we’ve written using words like we and our. We want you to know the basic commitments we share collectively as communication scholars. For each of the remaining chapters on specific theories, one of us took the lead in preparing the content. These chapters use I, my, and me when referring to individual thoughts or stories from our lives. Since Em was the original and sole author of the book for many years, many examples come from his life. So unless you see a reference in a chapter that Andrew or Glenn is sharing his own ideas, feelings, or experiences, you can assume that the “I” refers to Em. We don’t use personal references in every chapter, but when we do, we want you to know whose voice you’re “hearing.” We also make a consistent effort to link each theory with its creator(s). It takes both wisdom and courage to successfully plant a theoretical flag. In a process sim- ilar to the childhood game king-of-the-hill, as soon as a theorist constructs a theory of communication, critics try to pull it down. That’s OK, because the value of a theory is discerned by survival in the rough-and-tumble world of competitive ideas. For this reason we always include a section in theory chapters labeled “Critique.” Theorists who prevail deserve to have their names associated with their creations. There is a second reason for tying a theory to its author. Many of you will do further study in communication, and a mastery of names like Deetz, Giles, Walther, Baxter, Berger, and Burke will allow you to enter into the dialogue without being at a disadvantage. Ignoring the names of theorists could prove to be false economy in the long run. Don’t overlook the three features at the end of each chapter. The “Questions to Sharpen Your Focus” will help you mull over key points of the theory. They can be answered by pulling together information from this text and from the text of your life. The italicized words in each question highlight terms you need to know in order to understand the theory. Whenever you see a picture of the theorist, it’s captured from one of our Conversations with Communication Theorists and shown alongside a brief description of what we talked about. You can view these 6- to 8-minute interviews at www.afirstlook.com. And the feature entitled “A Second Look” offers an annotated bibliography of resources should you desire to know  CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY 11 more about the theory. You’ll find it a good place to start if you are writing a research paper on the theory or are intrigued with a particular aspect of it. You’ve already seen the last feature we’ll mention. In every chapter we include a cartoon for your learning and enjoyment. Cartoonists are often modern-day proph- ets. Their incisive wit can illustrate a feature of the theory in a way that’s more instructive and memorable than a few extra paragraphs would be. In addition to enjoying their humor, you can use the cartoons as minitests of comprehension. Unlike our comments on the dog theorizing about opposable thumbs earlier in this chapter, we usually don’t refer to the art or the caption that goes with it. So if you can’t figure out why a particular cartoon appears where it does, make a renewed effort to grasp the theorist’s ideas. Some students are afraid to try. Like travelers whose eyes glaze over at the sight of a road map, they have a phobia about theories that seek to explain human inten- tions and behavior. We sympathize with their qualms and misgivings, but find that the theories in this book haven’t dehydrated life or made it more confusing. On the contrary, they add clarity and provide a sense of competence as we communicate with others. We hope they do that for you as well. Every so often a student will ask one of us, “Do you really think about com- munication theory when you’re talking to someone?” Our answer is “Yes, but not all the time.” Like everyone else, we often speak on autopilot—words, phrases, sentences, descriptions roll off the tongue without conscious thought. Old habits die hard. But when we’re in a new setting or the conversational stakes are high, we start to think strategically. And that’s when the applied wisdom of theories that fit the situation comes to mind. By midterm, many of our students discover they’re thinking that way as well. That’s our wish for you as you launch your study of communication theory. QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS 1. Suppose you share the aircraft mechanic’s suspicion that scholars who create theories would be all thumbs working on a plane’s wings or engine. What would it take to transform your hunch into a theory? 2. Which metaphor of theory do you find most helpful—theory as a net, a lens, or a map? Can you think of another image that you could use to explain to a friend what this course is about? 3. Suppose you want to study the effects of yawns during intimate conversations. Would your research be addressing communication as we’ve defined it (the rela- tional process of creating and interpreting messages to elicit a response)? If not, how would you change the definition to make it include your interest? 4. You come to this course with a vast array of communication experiences in interpersonal, group and public, mass media, and intercultural contexts. What are the communication questions you want to answer, puzzles you want to solve, or problems you want to fix? A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: Gregory Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas (eds.), Communication as... Perspectives on Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006. Diverse definitions of communication: Frank E. X. Dance, “The Concept of Commu- nication,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, 1970, pp. 201–210. 12 OVERVIEW Brief history of communication theory since the early 1990s: Barbie Zelizer, “Making Communication Theory Matter,” Communication Theory, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015, pp. 410–415. Theories of communication as practical: Joann Keyton, Ryan S. Bisel, and Raymond Ozley, “Recasting the Link Between Applied and Theory Research: Using Applied Find- ings to Advance Communication Theory Development,” Communication Theory, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2009, pp. 146–160. Multidimensional view of theory: James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym, “Philoso- phies and Philosophic Issues in Communication, 1995–2004,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 54, 2004, pp. 589–615. To access 50-word summaries of theories featured in the book, see Appendix A or click on Theory Overview under Theory Resources at www.afirstlook.com. CHAPTER 2 Talk About Theory I met Glenn Sparks and Marty Medhurst during my first year teaching at Wheaton College. Glenn and Marty were friends who signed up for my undergraduate per- suasion course. As students, both men were interested in broadcast media. After graduating from Wheaton, each went on for a master’s degree at Northern Illinois University. Each then earned a doctorate at a different university, and both are now nationally recognized communication scholars. Marty is on the faculty at Baylor University; Glenn is at Purdue University and is a co-author of this book. Despite their similar backgrounds and interests, Glenn and Marty are quite different in their approaches to communication. Glenn calls himself a behavioral Behavioral scientist scientist, while Marty refers to himself as a rhetorician. Glenn’s training was in A scholar who applies the empirical research; Marty was schooled in rhetorical theory and criticism. Glenn scientific method to conducts experiments; Marty interprets texts. describe, predict, and To understand the theories ahead, you need to first grasp the crucial differences explain recurring forms of human behavior. between the objective and interpretive approaches to communication. As a way to introduce the distinctions, I asked Glenn and Marty to bring their scholarship to Rhetorician bear on a television commercial that first aired during Super Bowl XLVII, the game A scholar who studies the where the lights went out. It’s a stealth ad for beer that doesn’t show booze on a ways in which symbolic beach, men in a bar flirting with a waitress serving brew, or a guy tapping a keg forms can be used to identify with people, or to yelling, “Party all night!” These are typical images that turn off a significant portion persuade them toward a of viewers who see them as silly, distasteful, or unethical. That’s because those ads certain point of view. appear to promote the dangerous practice of binge drinking among young adults as a way to gain acceptance or get a buzz. Instead, this ad portrays the bond that develops between a shaggy-hooved Clydesdale horse and his young trainer.1 TWO COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS VIEW A HEARTWARMING AD Using no dialogue or voice-over, the Super Bowl commercial tells a visual story in 60 seconds. We see scenes of the newborn foal, his trainer asleep in the sick colt’s stall, horseplay between them as the animal gains stature, and the fully grown horse running free alongside the trainer’s truck. When it’s time for this magnificent animal to become part of a working team of Clydesdales promoting beer, the trainer leads him into the company’s horse van and gazes wistfully as it disappears down the road. Three years later, the man discovers the Clydesdales will be in a Chicago parade and drives to the city to reconnect with his horse. He smiles with pride as the horse prances by, but blinders keep the animal from seeing him. As the trainer walks sadly 13 14 OVERVIEW back to his truck, the harness is removed and the horse catches a glimpse of him. The final shots show the Clydesdale galloping down the street to catch up with his human friend, who then buries his face in the horse’s mane as they are reunited. Since the sponsor spent $7 million to air this one-minute commercial—and more than that to film it—its marketing department obviously believed that featuring this huge draft horse would sell huge amounts of draft beer. There’s no doubt that most critics and viewers liked the ad. Former Advertising Age analyst Ken Wheaton con- cluded, “Weepy, sentimental, nostalgic. I don’t care. This is everything I want from a Budweiser Super Bowl spot.”2 Yet as you’ll see, social scientist Glenn and rhetor- ical critic Marty take different theoretical approaches as they analyze the intent of the ad and how it works. Glenn: An Objective Approach After the 2013 Super Bowl ended, a research company announced that the Clydesdale ad was the year’s commercial winner.3 The researchers tracked 400 view- ers who used a mobile app to express their feelings during the broadcast. The extent Objective approach of viewers’ enthusiasm for the Clydesdale ad was on par with what they felt when The assumption that truth their favorite team scored a touchdown. Social scientists wonder why the commer- is singular and is cial produced such positive sentiment and whether it resulted in action. They want accessible through to explain and predict human behavior. unbiased sensory observation; committed to How do scientists satisfy these interests? After observing behavior, we identify uncovering cause-and- or construct a theory that offers insight into what we’ve observed. In this case, effect relationships. advertising guru Tony Schwartz’ resonance principle of communication is a promising theoretical idea.4 Although Schwartz passed away in 2008, his theory lives on. According to Schwartz, successful persuasive messages evoke past experiences that create resonance between the message content and a person’s thoughts or feel- ings. Schwartz believed that resonance leads to persuasion. It’s not arguments that persuade people as much as it is memories of personal experiences triggered by the message. The heartwarming story of a worker dedicated to a horse he loves may tap into viewers’ deep memories of their own devotion to animals they once nur- tured. The emotional scene at the end of the ad might stir reminiscence of your pet’s excitement when you would return home or the tremendous relief at being reunited with one you thought lost. Once these good feelings are evoked, Schwartz believed people associate them with the advertised product. For beer drinkers, those good feelings may lead to more sales. For viewers who see drinking beer as a health risk, the good feelings may lead to positive thoughts about a company that seems to care not only about selling beer, but also about taking good care of those splendid Clydesdales. In this case, persuasion may be measured both in beer sales and positive thoughts about Budweiser—a company well aware that its success may lead to alcohol abuse among consumers and a bad corporate reputation. Theories need to be validated. For scientists, it’s not enough to identify a theory that seems to apply to the situation. We want an objective test to find out if a theory is faulty. For example, I’d want to discover if commercials that trigger warm emo- tional memories are better than other ads at selling products or generating good feelings toward the sponsor. Testing audience response is a crucial scientific enter- prise. Even though a theory might sound plausible, we can’t be sure it’s valid until it’s been tested. In science, theory and research walk hand in hand.  CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 15 Marty: An Interpretive Approach There is more going on here than a simple reunion of man and horse. The entire ad is structured by an archetypal mythic pattern of birth-death-rebirth. Archetypal myths are those that draw upon a universal experience—what psychoanalyst Carl Jung called the “collective unconscious.”5 Deep within the mental makeup of all human beings is the archetype of the birth-death-rebirth cycle. The use of such archetypes, according to rhetorical theorist Michael Osborn, touches off “depth responses” that emotionally resonate at the core of our being.6 The ad activates Interpretive approach these emotions by incorporating the form of the cycle within a mini-narrative. The linguistic work of We first see the newborn colt in the barn as the breeder feeds him, strokes his assigning meaning or value to communicative coat, and even sleeps next to him in the stall. Birth naturally leads to growth, as texts; assumes that we watch the colt mature before our eyes. But just as this Clydesdale grows to full multiple meanings or stature, the Budweiser 18-wheeler arrives to take away the treasured horse. Symbol- truths are possible. ically, this is a death because it represents an absence or void. What once was is no more. Then, three years later, the breeder and his horse are reunited in an act of rebirth. The former relationship, which had been shattered by the symbolic death, is now restored with the reunion of man and horse. It is significant that the passage of time is three years. Just as Christians believe Jesus lay in the tomb for three days before his resurrection, so the horse is gone for three years before he reappears. But once he re-emerges, it is as though he never left. That which was lost has been found. The emotions evoked by this ad are strong because we are dealing with life and death, with loss and restoration. All of us unconsciously long for a reunion with those people or things in our lives that have been most important to us. Even the music—“Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac— underscores the archetypal pattern, as it speaks of love, loss, change, and being afraid. Fear of death is a primordial human instinct. It is only through a rebirth that we can reclaim what time and change have taken from us. The ad subtly suggests that Budweiser beer is our constant mainstay. Life changes and losses happen, but Bud never changes, never disappears. We see that in the shots of the beer bottle on the breeder’s table as he reads about the upcoming parade in Chicago. Bud is portrayed as our companion and our comforter, some- thing that will be with us through the dark nights of separation and loss. OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE WORLDVIEWS: SORTING OUT THE LABELS Although both of these scholars focus on the warm feelings viewers have when seeing the Budweiser Clydesdale ad, Glenn’s and Marty’s approaches to communi- cation study clearly differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. Glenn is a social scientist who works hard to be objective. When we refer to theorists and researchers like Glenn throughout the book, we’ll use the terms scientist and objec- tive scholar interchangeably. Marty is a rhetorical critic who does interpretive study. Here the labels get tricky. While it’s true that all rhetorical critics do interpretive analysis, not all Humanistic scholarship interpretive scholars are rhetoricians. Most (including Marty) are humanists who Study of what it’s like to study what it’s like to be another person in a specific time and place. But a be another person in a specific time and place; growing number of postmodern communication theorists reject that tradition. assumes there are few These interpretive scholars refer to themselves with a bewildering variety of important panhuman brand names: social constructionists, critical theorists, hermeneuticists, post- similarities. structuralists, deconstructivists, phenomenologists, cultural studies researchers, 16 OVERVIEW and social action theorists, as well as combinations of these terms. Writing from this postmodernist perspective, University of Utah theorist James Anderson observes: With this very large number of interpretive communities, names are contentious, border patrol is hopeless and crossovers continuous. Members, however, often see real differences.7 All of these scholars, including Marty, do interpretive analysis—scholarship con- cerned with meaning—yet there’s no common term like scientist that includes them all. So from this point on we’ll use the designation interpretive scholars or the noun form interpreters to refer to the entire group, and use rhetoricians, humanists, post- modernists, or critical scholars only when singling out a particular subgroup. The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect contrast- ing assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of human nature, questions of value, and the purpose of theory. The rest of this chapter sketches out these differences. WAYS OF KNOWING: DISCOVERING TRUTH OR CREATING MULTIPLE REALITIES? How do we know what we know, if we know it at all? This is the central question addressed by a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. You may have been in school for a dozen-plus years, read assignments, written papers, and taken tests without ever delving into the issue What is truth? With or without in-depth study of the issue, however, we all inevitably make assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Epistemology Scientists assume that Truth is singular. They see a single, timeless reality “out The study of the origin, there” that’s not dependent on local conditions. It’s waiting to be discovered through nature, method, and limits the five senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. Since the raw sensory data of knowledge. of the world is accessible to any competent observer, science seeks to be bias-free, with no ax to grind. The evidence speaks for itself. As Galileo observed, anyone could see through his telescope. Of course, no one person can know it all, so indi- vidual researchers pool their findings and build a collective body of knowledge about how the world works. Scientists consider good theories to be those that are faithful representations of the way the world really is. Of the metaphors introduced in Chapter 1, they like the image of theory as a mirror that reflects reality, or a net that captures part of it. Objective theorists are confident that once a principle is discovered and vali- dated, it will continue to hold true as long as conditions remain relatively the same. That’s why Glenn believes the theory of resonance can explain why other media messages succeed or fail. Interpretive scholars seek truth as well, but many interpreters regard that truth as socially constructed through communication. They believe language creates social realities that are always in flux rather than revealing or representing fixed principles or relationships in a world that doesn’t change. Knowledge is always viewed from a particular standpoint. A word, a gesture, or an act may have constancy within a given community, but it’s dangerous to assume that interpretations can cross lines of time and space. Texts never interpret themselves. Most of these scholars, in fact, hold that truth is largely subjective—that meaning is highly interpretive. But rhetorical critics like  CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 17 Marty are not relativists, arbitrarily assigning meaning on a whim. They do maintain, however, that objectivity is a myth; we can never entirely separate the knower from the known. Convinced that meaning is in the mind rather than in the verbal sign, inter- preters are comfortable with the notion that a text may have multiple meanings. Rhetorical critics are successful when they get others to view a text through their interpretive lens—to adopt a new perspective on the world. For example, did Marty convince you that the Budweiser ad draws upon a deep-seated pattern of birth- death-rebirth ingrained in all of us? As Anderson notes, “Truth is a struggle, not a status.”8 HUMAN NATURE: DETERMINISM OR FREE WILL? One of the great philosophical debates throughout history revolves around the ques- tion of human choice.9 Hard-line determinists claim that every move we make is the result of heredity (“biology is destiny”) and environment (“pleasure stamps in, pain stamps out”). On the other hand, free-will purists insist that every human act is Determinism ultimately voluntary (“I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul”10). The assumption that Although few communication theorists are comfortable with either extreme, most behavior is caused by tend to line up on one side or the other. Scientists stress the forces that shape heredity and environment. human behavior; interpretive scholars focus on conscious choices made by individuals. The difference between these two views of human nature inevitably creeps into the language people use to explain what they do. Individuals who feel like puppets on strings say, “I had to... ,” whereas people who feel they pull their own strings say, “I decided to....” The first group speaks in a passive voice: “I was distracted from studying by the argument at the next table.” The second group speaks in an active voice: “I stopped studying to listen to the argument at the next table.” In the same way, the language of scholarship often reflects theorists’ views of human nature. Behavioral scientists usually describe human conduct as occurring because of forces outside the individual’s awareness. Their causal explanations tend not to include appeals to mental reasoning or conscious choice. They usually describe behavior as the response to a prior stimulus. Schwartz’ theory of resonance posits that messages triggering emotional memories from our past will inevitably affect us. We will be swayed by an ad that strikes a responsive chord. In contrast, interpretive scholars tend to use explanatory phrases such as in order to and so that because they attribute a person’s action to conscious intent. Their word selection suggests that people are free agents who could decide to respond differently under an identical set of circumstances. Marty, for example, uses the language of voluntary action rather than knee-jerk behavior when he writes, “It is only through a rebirth that we can reclaim what time and change have taken from us.” If someone reclaims what was lost, it is an act of volition. The trainer decided to go to Chicago. Others who felt loss might not. The consistent interpreter doesn’t ask why this man made that choice. As Anderson explains, “True choice demands to be its own cause and its own explanation.”11 Human choice is problematic for the behavioral scientist because as individual freedom goes up, predictability of behavior goes down. Conversely, the roots of humanism are threatened by a highly restricted view of human choice. In an 18 OVERVIEW DILBERT © 1993 Scott Adams. Used By permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved. impassioned plea, British author C. S. Lewis exposes the paradox of stripping away people’s freedom and yet expecting them to exercise responsible choice: In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.12 Lewis assumes that significant decisions are value laden; interpretive scholars would agree. THE HIGHEST VALUE: OBJECTIVITY OR EMANCIPATION? When we talk about values, we’re discussing priorities, questions of relative worth.13 Values are the traffic lights of our lives that guide what we think, feel, and do. The professional values of communication theorists reflect the commitments they’ve made concerning knowledge and human nature. Since most social scientists hold to a distinction between the “knower” and the “known,” they place value on objectivity that’s not biased by ideological commitments. Because humanists and others in the interpretive camp believe that the ability to choose is what separates humanity from the rest of creation, they value scholarship that expands the range of free choice. As a behavioral scientist, Glenn works hard to maintain his objectivity. He is a man with strong moral and spiritual convictions, and these may influence the topics he studies. But he doesn’t want his personal values to distort reality or con- fuse what is with what he thinks ought to be. As you can see from Glenn’s call for  CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 19 Empirical evidence objective testing, he is frustrated when theorists offer no empirical evidence for their Data collected through claims or don’t even suggest a way in which their ideas could be validated by an direct observation. independent observer. He is even more upset when he hears of researchers who fudge the findings of their studies to shore up questionable hypotheses. Glenn shares the research values of Harvard sociologist George Homans—to let the evi- dence speak for itself: “When nature, however stretched out on the rack, still has a chance to say ‘no’—then the subject is science.”14 Marty is aware of his own ideology and is not afraid to bring his values to bear upon a communication text and come under scrutiny. He doesn’t take an overtly critical stance toward advertising or the capitalist system. But his insight of Bud framed as a constant companion and comforter gives us the resource to laugh at the irony of hugging a bottle of beer whenever we feel lonely or a sense of loss. Critical interpreters value socially relevant research that seeks to liberate people from oppression of any sort—economic, political, religious, emotional, or any other. They decry the detached stance of scientists who refuse to take respon- sibility for the results of their work. Whatever the pursuit—a Manhattan Project to split the atom, a Human Genome Project to map human genes, or a class project to analyze the effectiveness of an ad—critical interpreters insist that knowledge is never neutral. “There is no safe harbor in which researchers can avoid the power structure.”15 In the heading for this section, we’ve contrasted the primary values of scientific Emancipation and interpretive scholars by using the labels objectivity and emancipation. University Liberation from any form of Colorado emeritus communication professor Stan Deetz frames the issue some- of political, economic, what differently. He says that every general communication theory has two priorities— racial, religious, or sexual effectiveness and participation.16 Effectiveness is concerned with successfully commu- oppression; empowerment. nicating information, ideas, and meaning to others. It also includes persuasion. Participation is concerned with increasing the possibility that all points of view will affect collective decisions and individuals being open to new ideas. It also encour- ages difference, opposition, and independence. The value question is Which concern has higher priority? Objective theorists usually foreground effectiveness and relegate participation to the background. Interpretive theorists tend to focus on participation and downplay effectiveness. PURPOSE OF THEORY: UNIVERSAL LAWS OR INTERPRETIVE GUIDES? Even if Glenn and Marty could agree on the nature of knowledge, the extent of human autonomy, and the ultimate values of scholarship, their words would still sound strange to each other because they use distinct vocabularies to accomplish different goals. As a behavioral scientist, Glenn is working to pin down universal laws of human behavior that cover a variety of situations. As a rhetorical critic, Marty strives to interpret a particular communication text in a specific context. If these two scholars were engaged in fashion design rather than research design, Glenn would probably tailor a coat suitable for many occasions that covers everybody well—one size fits all. Marty might apply principles of fashion design to style a coat that makes an individual statement for a single client—a one-of-a-kind, custom creation. Glenn adopts a theory and then tests it to see if it covers everyone. Marty uses theory to make sense of unique communication events. Since theory testing is the basic activity of the behavioral scientist, Glenn starts with a hunch about how the world works—perhaps the idea that stories are more persuasive than arguments. He then crafts a tightly worded hypothesis that temporarily 20 OVERVIEW commits him to a specific prediction. As an empiricist, he can never completely “prove” that he has made the right gamble; he can only show in test after test that his behavioral bet pays off. If repeated studies uphold his hypothesis, he can more confidently predict which media ads will be effective, explain why, and make recom- mendations on how practitioners can craft messages that stir up memories. The interpretive scholar explores the web of meaning that constitutes human existence. When Marty creates scholarship, he isn’t trying to prove theory. However, he sometimes uses the work of rhetorical theorists like Michael Osborn to inform his interpretation of the aural and visual texts of people’s lives. Robert Ivie, former editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, suggests that rhetorical critics ought to use theory this way: We cannot conduct rhetorical criticism of social reality without benefit of a guid- ing rhetorical theory that tells us generally what to look for in social practice, what to make of it, and whether to consider it significant.17 OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Why is it important to grasp the differences between objective and interpretive schol- arship? The first answer is because you can’t fully understand a theory if you aren’t familiar with its underlying assumptions about truth, human nature, the purpose of the theory, and its values. If you’re clueless, things can get confusing fast. It’s like the time my wife, Jeanie, and I were walking around the Art Institute of Chicago, enjoying the work of French impressionists who painted realistic scenes that I could recognize. Then I wandered into a room dedicated to abstract expressionism. The paintings seemed bizarre and made no sense to me. I was bewildered and somewhat disdainful until Jeanie, who is an artist, explained the goals these painters had and the techniques they used to achieve them. So too with interpretive and objective communication theories. Right now you are probably more familiar and comfortable with one approach than you are with the other. But when you understand what each type of theorist is about, your comfort zone will expand and your confusion will diminish. There’s another reason to master these metatheoretical differences. After expo- sure to a dozen or more theories, you may find that they begin to blur together in your mind. Classifying them as scientific or interpretive is a good way to keep them straight. It’s somewhat like sorting 52 cards into suits—spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. In most sophisticated card games, the distinction is crucial. By the end Metatheory Theory about theory; the of this course you could have up to 32 cards in your deck of communication the- stated or inherent ories. Being able to sort them in multiple combinations is a good way to show assumptions made when yourself and your professor that you’ve mastered the material. When you can com- creating a theory. pare and contrast theories on the basis of their interpretive or objective worldview, you’ve begun an integration that’s more impressive than rote memorization. Understanding these objective/interpretive choice points can also help you decide the direction you want to take in your remaining course work. Some con- centrations in the field of communication tend to have either a scientific or an interpretive bias. For example, all the theories we present in the relationship devel- opment, influence, and media effects sections of the book are proposed by objective scholars. Conversely, most of the theories we cover in the public rhetoric, media and culture, organizational communication, and gender and communication sec- tions are interpretive. You’ll want to see if this is true at your school before you choose the specific route you’ll take.  CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 21 Finally, theorists in both camps hope you’ll care because each group believes that its brand of work holds promise for improving relationships and society. The scientist is convinced that knowing the truth about how communication works will give us a clearer picture of social reality. The interpreter is equally sure that unearth- ing communicator motivation and hidden ideologies will improve society by increas- ing free choice and discouraging unjust practices. If you think you have a good grasp of how objective and interpretive theories differ, continue on to Chapters 3 and 4. But if you’d like to see an example of what each type of theory looks like, you might flip ahead to Expectancy Violations Theory (Chapter 7) and Relational Dialectics Theory (Chapter 11). Both are interpersonal theories—the former highly objective and the latter highly interpretive. As you read each chapter, try to spot the differences between their approaches to ways of know- ing, human nature, values, and the purpose of theory. PLOTTING THEORIES ON AN OBJECTIVE–INTERPRETIVE SCALE In this chapter I’ve introduced four important areas of difference between objective and interpretive communication scholars and the theories they create. Once you understand how they differ, it will be helpful for you to realize that not all theorists fall neatly into one category or the other. Many have a foot in both camps. It’s more accurate to picture the objective and interpretive labels as anchoring the ends of a continuum, with theorists spread out along the scale. Objective Interpretive Figure 2–1 displays our evaluation of where each theory we feature fits on an objective–interpretive continuum. For easier reference to positions on the scale, we’ve numbered the five columns at the bottom of the chart. In placing a theory, we’ve tried to factor in choices the theorists have made about ways of knowing, human nature, what they value most, and the purpose of theory. We’ve consulted a number of scholars in the field to get their “read” on appropriate placements. They didn’t always agree, but in most cases the discussion has sharpened our understanding of theory and the issues to be considered in the process of creating one. What we learned is reflected in the chapters ahead. Of course, the position of each dot won’t make much sense to you until you’ve read about the theory. But by looking at the pattern of distribution, you can see that roughly half the theories have an objective orientation, while the other half reflect an interpretive commitment. This 50–50 split matches the mix of scholarship we see in the field. When talking about relationships among the theories and the common assumptions made by a group of theorists, your instructor may frequently refer back to this chart. So for easy reference, we reproduce the appropriate “slice” of the chart on the first page of each chapter. Now that you have an idea of the differences between objective and interpretive theories, you may wonder whether some of these theories are better than others. We think so. Chapter 3, “Weighing the Words,” offers a set of six standards you can use to judge the quality of objective theories, and a half dozen alternative cri- teria to discern the worth of interpretive theories. By applying the appropriate criteria, you can see if you agree with our evaluations. 22 OVERVIEW Objective Interpretive Interpersonal Communication Symbolic Interactionism Coordinated Management of Meaning Expectancy Violations Theory Social Penetration Theory Uncertainty Reduction Theory Social Information Processing Theory Relational Dialectics Theory Media Multiplexity Theory Communication Privacy Management Theory Social Judgment Theory Elaboration Likelihood Model Cognitive Dissonance Theory Group and Public Communication Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making Symbolic Convergence Theory Cultural Approach to Organizations Communicative Constitution of Organizations Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations The Rhetoric Dramatism Narrative Paradigm Mass Communication Media Ecology Semiotics Cultural Studies Uses and Gratifications Cultivation Theory Agenda-Setting Theory Cultural Context Genderlect Styles Standpoint Theory Muted Group Theory Communication Accommodation Theory Face-Negotiation Theory Co-Cultural Theory 1 2 3 4 5 FIGURE 2–1 Classification of Communication Theories According to Objective/ Interpretive Worldview QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS 1. Compare Glenn Sparks’ and Marty Medhurst’s approaches to the Clydesdale commercial. Which analysis makes the most sense to you? Why? 2. How do scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answers to the ques- tion What is truth? Which perspective do you find more satisfying?  CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 23 3. How do you account for the wide-ranging diversity among types of interpretive theories (rhetorical, critical, humanistic, postmodern, etc.) compared to the rela- tive uniformity of objective theories? 4. Think of the communication classes you’ve taken. Did an objective or interpretive orientation undergird each course? Was this due more to the nature of the subject matter or to the professor’s point of view? A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym, “Philosophies and Philosophic Issues in Communication 1995–2004,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 54, 2004, pp. 589–615. Metatheoretical overview: James A. Anderson, Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations, Guilford, New York, 1996, pp. 13–77. Metatheory: Robert T. Craig, “Metatheory,” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2009, pp. 657–661. Contemporary scientific scholarship: Charles Berger, Michael Roloff, and David Roskos-Ewoldsen (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science, 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2010. Contemporary rhetorical scholarship: Sonja Foss, Karen Foss, and Robert Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3rd ed., Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL, 2000. Defense of empirical scholarship: Robert Bostrom and Lewis Donohew, “The Case for Empiricism: Clarifying Fundamental Issues in Communication Theory,” Communication Monographs, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 109–129. Defense of interpretive scholarship: Arthur Bochner, “Perspectives on Inquiry II: The- ories and Stories,” in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2nd ed., Mark Knapp and Gerald Miller (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 21–41. Intellectual roots of interpretive theories: Isaac E. Catt, “The Two Sciences of Commu- nication in Philosophical Context,” Review of Communication, Vol. 14, 2014, pp. 201–228. Scientific research: Glenn Sparks, Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2013. Rhetorical analysis: Martin J. Medhurst, “George W. Bush at Goree Island: American Slavery and the Rhetoric of Redemption,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 96, 2010, pp. 257–277. CHAPTER 3 Weighing the Words In Chapter 2 we looked at two distinct approaches to communication theory— objective and interpretive. Because the work of social scientists and interpreters is so different, they often have trouble understanding and valuing their counterparts’ scholarship. This workplace tension parallels the struggle between Democrats and Republicans. Members of both political parties study the same financial reports, projected statistics, and potential solutions for fixing the nation’s economic woes. Nevertheless, when it comes to proposing a plan of action, the two parties are often miles apart. The distance is usually due to the different assumptions each party uses to guide its thinking. Their philosophies can be so divergent that significant agree- ment seems nearly impossible, and meaningful compromise an unrealistic option. In politics, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of adopting specific proposals and passing concrete laws, the partisan bickering can make the conversation tense. The same can be said of the disputes that are common between objective and interpretive communication scholars. Differences in ways of knowing, views of human nature, values, goals of theory building, and research methods seem to lead to tension and misunderstanding. Friendly attitudes between empiricists and interpreters can be hard to come by when each group insists on applying its own standards of judgment to the work of the other group. As a first-time reader of communication theory, you could easily get sucked into making the same mistake. If you’ve had training in the scientific method and judge the value of every communication theory by whether it predicts human behavior, you’ll be tempted to reject 50 percent of the theories presented in this book. On the other hand, if you’ve been steeped in the humanities and expect every theory to help unmask the meaning of a text, you’ll be inclined to dismiss the other half. Regardless of which approach you favor, not all objective or interpretive com- munication theories are equally good. For each type, some are better than others. Like family members trying to decide which pizza to order, you’ll want a way to separate the good, the bad, and the nasty. Since we’ve included theories originating in the social sciences as well as the humanities, you need to have two separate lenses through which to view their respective claims. This chapter offers that pair of bifocals. We hope by the time you finish you’ll be on friendly terms with the separate criteria that behavioral scientists and a wide range of interpretive scholars use to weigh the words of their colleagues. We’ll start with the standards that social scientists use to judge the worth of objective theories, and then turn to the criteria that interpretive scholars employ to evaluate their communication theories. 24  CHAPTER 3: WEIGHING THE WORDS 25 WHAT MAKES AN OBJECTIVE THEORY GOOD? An objective theory is credible when it fulfills the twin objectives of scientific knowledge. The theory predicts some future outcome, and it explains the reasons for that outcome. Social scientists of all kinds agree on four additional criteria a theory must meet to be good—relative simplicity, testability, practical utility, and quantifiable research. As we discuss these standards, we will use the terms objective and scientific interchangeably. Scientific Standard 1: Prediction of Future Events A good objective theory predicts what will happen. Prediction is possible only when we are dealing with things we can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste over and over again. As we repeatedly notice the same things happening in similar situations, we begin to speak of invariable patterns or universal laws. In the realm of the physical sciences, we are seldom embarrassed. Objects don’t have a choice about how to respond to a stimulus. The sun can’t choose to rise in the west instead of the east. The social sciences are another matter. Although theories of human behavior often cast their predictions with confidence, a good measure of humility on the part of the theorist is advisable. Even the best theory may only be able to speak about people in general, rather than about specific individuals—and these only in terms of probability and tendencies, not absolute certainty. What do good scientific communication theories forecast? Some predict that a specific type of communication triggers a particular response. (Mutual self-disclosure creates interpersonal intimacy.) Other theories predict that people will use different types of communication depending upon some pre-existing factor. (People avoid messages that they think will be disagreeable so they won’t experience cognitive dissonance.) These claims may or may not be true, but you should regard the sci- entific theories presented in this book as valuable to the extent that theorists are willing to make confident predictions about communication behavior. Scientific Standard 2: Explanation of the Data A good objective theory explains an event or human behavior. Philosopher of sci- ence Abraham Kaplan said that theory is a way of making sense out of a disturbing situation.1 An objective theory should bring clarity to an otherwise jumbled state of affairs; it should draw order out of chaos. A good social science theory describes the process, focuses our attention on what’s crucial, and helps us ignore that which makes little difference. But it also goes beyond raw data and explains why. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, urban legend says the Depression-era bandit replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” It’s a great line, but as a theory of motivation, it lacks explan- atory power. There’s nothing in the words that casts light on the internal processes or environmental forces that led Sutton to crack a safe while others tried to crack the stock market. Sometimes a communication theory can sound great, but upon closer inspection it doesn’t explain much. Years ago, researchers discovered that by having people answer a few key questions about the emotions they felt prior to giving a speech, they could predict which people would be the most nervous or apprehensive during the talk itself. A theory based on the research claimed that communication apprehension 26 OVERVIEW was a trait only some people possess. The theory had great predictive power in iden- tifying nervous public speakers, but it lacked a good explanation for why some people became nervous and others didn’t.2 It merely suggested that nervous speakers pos- sessed the trait of communication apprehension. You can probably sense that this circular thinking leaves something to be desired. How do people acquire the trait? Are they born with it? Can they get rid of it through some type of intervention? Over the past few decades, theorists have grappled with the question of how well “trait” theories explain behavior.3 If the rationale behind why people engage in certain behaviors is simply That’s the kind of people they are, objective scholars won’t be happy with the theory’s explanatory power. As a student of communication theory, you shouldn’t be either. When you evaluate an objective theory, keep in mind that the reason something happens becomes as important as the fact that it does. Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity A good objective theory is as simple as possible—no more complex than it has to be. Several decades ago a cartoonist named Rube Goldberg made people laugh by sketching plans for complicated machines that performed simple tasks. His “better mousetrap” went through a sequence of 15 mechanical steps that were triggered by turning a crank and ended with a bird cage dropping over a cheese-eating mouse. Goldberg’s designs were funny because the machines were so needlessly convo- luted. They violated the scientific principle called Occam’s razor, so named because philosopher William of Occam implored theorists to “shave off” any assumptions, variables, or concepts that aren’t necessary to explain what’s going on.4 When you’ve Rule of parsimony concentrated on a subject for a long time, it’s easy to get caught up in the grandeur (Occam’s razor) of a theoretical construction. Yet the rule of parsimony—another label for the same Given two plausible principle—states that given two plausible explanations for the same event, we should explanations for the same accept the less complex version. Theoretical p