Communication Theory Lecture Notes PDF

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 4 – Social Penetration Theory & Uncertainty Reduction Theory  0 1 Penetration Social Theory of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor  Social Penetration Theory: Introduction The process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through...

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 4 – Social Penetration Theory & Uncertainty Reduction Theory  0 1 Penetration Social Theory of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor  Social Penetration Theory: Introduction The process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability. Social psychologists Irwin Alt man and Dalmas Taylor proposed a social penetration process that explains how relational closeness develops.  Personality Structure: A Multilayered Onion Personality structure: Onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings about self, others, and the world. Outer layers are held in common with others. Beneath the surface are semiprivate attitudes revealed only to some. Inner core is made of values, self-concept, unresolved conflicts, and deeply felt emotions.  Closeness through Self- Disclosure Self-disclosure: The voluntary sharing of personal history, preferences, attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc. with another person. Once the wedge has penetrated deeply, it will have cut a passage through which it can return with little resistance. Future privacy will be difficult. Permanent guard limits the closeness two people can achieve. Figure 8.1: Penetration of Pete’s Personality Structure  The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure: Depth Depth of penetration: The degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individual's life. Depth of penetration is also known as the degree of intimacy.  The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure 1 Four observations outlined by Altman and Taylor about the social penetration process: Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development. Law of reciprocity: Paced and orderly process in which openness in one person leads to openness in the other.  The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure 2 Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.  The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure: Breadth Breadth of penetration: The range of areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place. Breadth without depth describes casual relationship. True intimacy has multiple wedges inserted deeply into every area.  Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Cost 1 Altman and Taylor draw on social exchange theory of Thibaut and Kelley. Social exchange: Relationship behavior and status regulated by both parties' evaluations of perceived rewards and costs of interaction with each other. Outcome: Rewards minus costs. Outcome: The perceived rewards minus the costs of interpersonal interaction. Minimax principle of human behavior: People  Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Cost 2 As a relationship changes, so does the nature of interaction that friends find rewarding. Deeper friendships thrive on common values and spoken appreciation. People sometimes enjoy ways that the other person differs from them.  Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Cost 3 Gauging Relational Satisfaction—The Comparison Level (CL) Comparison level (CL): Threshold above which an interpersonal outcome seems attractive. Our relational history establishes our comparison levels for friendship, romance, or family ties. We judge the value of a relationship by comparing it to the baseline of past experience. Sequential interactions play a large part in evaluating relationships. Experiences that take place early in a relationship can have a huge impact because they make up a large proportion of the total relational history.  Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Cost 4 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. The relative values of outcome, CL, and CLalt go a long way in determining whether a person is willing to become vulnerable in order to have a deeper relationship. The optimum situation is when both parties find the following: Outcome > CL alt > CL  Ethical Reflection: Epicurus’ Ethical Egoism Ethical egoism: Belief that individuals should live their lives so as to maximize their own pleasure and minimize their pain. Most ethical and religious thinkers denounce egoism as morally repugnant.  Dialectics and the Environment 1 Altman had second thoughts about his basic assumption that openness is the predominant quality of relationship development. He proposed the dialectical model, where people want both privacy and intimacy in their social relationships. They experience tension between disclosure and withdrawal. Altman identified the environment as also a factor in social penetration. He stated that sometimes the environment guides our decision to disclose, while at other times we actively manipulate our environment to meet our privacy and  Dialectics and the Environment 2 Altman studied social penetration in dorm living at the University of Utah. Found that students were more likely to remain at the university when they honored their need for territoriality. Territoriality: Tendency to claim a physical location or object as our own. This need shows that the onion of social penetration includes both our mind and our physical space. Some students in Altman's study crafted a dorm room environment that welcomed others. These students tended to succeed at college. The students who later dropped out were reticent in their approach and shut out potential visitors to their rooms.  Critique: Pulling Back from Social Penetration 1 Some scholars think social penetration theory is too simple. Petronio thinks it's simplistic to equate self-disclosure with relational closeness. She also questions Altman and Taylor's view of personality structure. According to Natalie Pennington's research, social media may alter the disclosure process described by social penetration theory.  Critique: Pulling Back from Social Penetration 2 Other scholars are uncomfortable with Altman and Taylor's wholesale use of a reward–cost analysis. To these scholars, relational life has a complex human core that simple economic calculus cannot touch. According to Wright, Altman and Taylor's theory doesn't speak about the transition from "me" to "we." Social penetration theory may be simple, but it has stood the test of time. For scholars, it provides testable hypotheses that can be vetted through quantitative research.  0 2 Uncertainty Reduction Theory of Charles Berger  Uncertainty Reduction Theory 1 The late Chuck Berger (University of California, Davis) believed it's natural to have doubts about our ability to predict the outcome of initial encounters. Berger's uncertainty reduction theory (URT) focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding.  Uncertainty Reduction Theory 2 Berger contends that our drive to reduce uncertainty about new acquaintances gets a boost from any of the three prior conditions: Anticipation of future interaction. Incentive value. Deviance. We talk to people to "make sense" of our interpersonal world.  Uncertainty Reduction: To Predict and Explain 1 Berger focused on predictability, which he saw as the opposite of uncertainty. He owed a debt to Fritz Heider's view of people as intuitive psychologists. Attribution theory: Systematic explanation of how people draw inferences about the character of others based on observed behavior (Fritz Heider).  Uncertainty Reduction: To Predict and Explain 2 According to Berger, there are two kinds of uncertainty. Behavioral questions. Cognitive questions. Berger focuses on cognitive.  Uncertainty Reduction: To Predict and Explain 3 Berger (continued). Uncertainty reduction: Increased knowledge of what kind of person another is, which provides an improved forecast of how a future interaction will turn out. Reducing cognitive uncertainty allows one to acquire information about another person and discard many potential questions about them.  An Axiomatic Theory: Certainty about Uncertainty Berger proposed a series of axioms to explain the connection between his central concept of uncertainty and eight key variables of relationship development. Eight key variables: Verbal communication, nonverbal warmth, information seeking, self- disclosure, reciprocity, similarity, liking, and shared networks. Axiom: A self-evident truth that requires no additional proof.  Axiom 1: Verbal Communication High level of uncertainty when people meet for the first time. As verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty for each interactant will decrease. As uncertainty decreases, the amount of verbal communication will increase.  Axiom 2: Nonverbal Warmth As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease in an initial interaction situation. Decreases in uncertainty level cause increases in nonverbal warmth.  Axiom 3: Information Seeking High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior. As uncertainty levels decline, information-seeking behavior decreases.  Axiom 4: Self-Disclosure High levels of uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy.  Axiom 5: Reciprocity High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity.  Axiom 6: Similarity Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities increases in uncertainty.  Axiom 7: Liking Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking. Decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking.  Axiom 8: Shared Networks Shared communication networks reduce uncertainty. Lack of shared networks increases uncertainty. Theorems: The Logical Force of Uncertainty Axioms Theorem: Proposition that logically and necessarily follows from two axioms. Uses deductive logic. If A = B and B = C then A = C. Berger generates 28 theorems using combinations of axioms. Figure 9.1: Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory  Three Intriguing Issues Raised by Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) The restricted scope and axiomatic form of Berger's URT theory stimulated other communication scholars to explore the following three questions about the theory: Does uncertainty reduction work the same way in intercultural situations? Can uncertainty wreak havoc in ongoing relationships? When emotions run high, how do people manage uncertainty?  Does Uncertainty Reduction Work the Same Way in Intercultural Situations? The greater the cultural gap, the greater the complexity and initial uncertainty for both parties in a situation. Relational anxiety: The feeling of being uneasy, tense, worried, or apprehensive about what might happen in a relationship. (Gudykunst) William Gudykunst saw uncertainty and anxiety as twin threats to be managed in order to achieve effective cross-cultural understanding.  Can Uncertainty Wreak Havoc in Ongoing Relationships? 1 Leanne Knobloch adapted Berger's theory to close relationships. Uncertainty in close relationships arises from whether we're sure about: Our own thoughts (Am I really in love?). The thoughts of the other person (Does he really enjoy spending time together?). The future of the relationship (Are we headed for a breakup?).  Can Uncertainty Wreak Havoc in Ongoing Relationships? Knobloch's initial research found that romantic couples' 2 transition from casual to serious dating produced feelings of uncertainty, and some couples also experienced partner interference. Uncertainty leads close partners to experience relational turbulence. Relational turbulence: Negative emotions arising from perceived problems in a close relationship. Direct attempts to reduce uncertainty may help resolve relational turbulence. Knobloch believes that we're likely to talk directly in relationships with high intimacy and equal power.  When Emotions Run High, How Do People Manage Uncertainty? The greater the uncertainty gap, the greater people feel emotions, whether be it anxiety or hope. The strength of that emotion is the motive force to contemplate three questions of efficacy: Coping efficacy: Can I cope with what information I might discover? Communication efficacy: Do I feel that I have the communication skills to competently seek the information from them? Target efficacy: Will they be willing to give me honest information that will reduce my uncertainty discrepancy? Efficacy: Perception that one has the ability to produce a  Seeking Information to Reduce Uncertainty Strategies to reduce uncertainty and form an impression. Passive strategy: Observing a person interacting with others. Active strategy: Asking a third party about a person. Interactive strategy: Face-to-face discussion with a person. Extractive strategy: Searching the Internet for information about a person.  Critique: Nagging Doubts about Uncertainty 1 Berger's theory excels by making testable predictions, being simple to understand, having practical utility, and using quantitative research methods to support most claims. Continuing questions exist about Berger's reliance on the concept of uncertainty and the assumption that people are motivated to reduce it. Kellermann and Reynolds challenge Axiom 3, which assumes "lack of information triggers a search for knowledge."  Critique: Nagging Doubts about Uncertainty 2 Sunnafrank challenges Berger's claim that uncertainty reduction is the key to understanding early encounters. He insists that the early course of a relationship is guided by its predicted outcome value (POV). Predicted outcome value: A forecast of future benefits and costs of interaction based on limited experience with the other. Berger's analysis of initial interaction is a major