Let’s face it -- communication theories can be complicated and abstract concepts to grasp, let alone reproduce. That said, below is my attempt to capture the essence of 13 key communication theories as briefly as possible. The summaries below are derived from Griffin (2012), p. 54 – 229. See if you agree with these Cliffs Notes renditions.
Divine Agodzo
1. Symbolic interactionism
Simply put, symbolic interactionism posits that “perception is reality” or better put, “perception through interaction is reality.” The theory suggests that meaning is the interpretation we subjectively give to reality; it is not intrinsic. As we interact with others through language, we make and modify meaning, and through thinking or “minding” we provide our individual interpretation of this socially constructed meaning.
2. Coordinated management of meaning (CMM)
Like symbolic interactionism, CMM is rooted in social constructionism, the idea that communication does not describe our relationships and our reality, but in fact, creates them. This happens as much through the patterns, mood and manner of our communication (its “logical force”) as through their actual content. CMM’s reflexivity concept holds that the actions of people in communication have effects that bounce of each other, as they create the ecology of the world in which they must live.
3. Expectancy violations theory
Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory contends that in some situations, breaching societal or personal expectations, is an effective communication strategy. The theory has three key concepts: “Expectancy” is what people predict will happen; “violation valence” is the degree to which the violation is perceived positively or negatively; and “communicator reward valence” is the ratio of positive to negative values attributed to the one committing the violation, and the degree to which they are seen as being able to reward or punish the person on the receiving end of the violation. The theory suggests that when a breach has a positive violation valence, it will yield superior results compared to compliance.
4. Constructivism
Constructivism proposes that the ability of individuals to communicate skillfully (or not) depends on the complexity (or otherwise) of the cognitive templates or “constructs” with which they view the world. These constructs are the contrasting features they use to classify people, and the more distinguishing they are (able to isolate subtle personality and behavior differences among people), the greater the individual’s cognitive complexity or “construct differentiation.” According to theorist Jesse Delia, individuals with higher construct differentiation are better able to adapt their communication to suit varying needs of the audience and differing situational requirements, producing what she describes as “sophisticated communication.”
5. Social penetration theory
Social penetration theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant social layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies). This process occurs through self-disclosure; is guided by the “law of reciprocity” (self-disclosure by one causes the other communicant to also self-disclose); and is motivated by consideration of outcomes (perceived rewards of self-disclosure minus costs). A reverse process of “depenetration” can also occur when communicants gradually close up their lives to each other.
6.Uncertainty reduction theory
Theorist Charles Berger is of the opinion that when individuals meet for the first time (strangers), a driving goal in their communication is the reduction of uncertainty that inevitably exists about how to navigate the relationship. He notes that this is especially so if there is the expectation that future/ongoing interaction will occur; if there is something at stake in the relationship (an incentive value); or if the other party has unusual/inexplicable features (deviance). Berger developed eight axioms to explain and predict how uncertainty operates in interpersonal communication. Uncertainty can be reduced using a passive, active or interactive strategy.
7. Social information processing theory (SIP)
Social information theory argues that Computer Media Communication is able to provide a parallel, and in some cases richer interpersonal communication experience than face-to-face communication. Theorist Joseph Walther argued that CMC uses linguistic content to compensate for the lack of non-verbal cues. The theory concedes, however, that interpersonal relations are formed at a slower rate in CMC, but given time, will attain all the features of a face-to-face relationship, and even more (hyperpersonal perspective).
8. Relational dialectics
Relational dialectics proposes that contradictory forces are at play in interpersonal relationships. This is when two forces or tendencies are interdependent (the dialectical principle of unity), and yet mutually negate one another (the dialectical principle of negation). Theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery identified relational dialectics at work in three key areas: integration vs. separation; stability vs. change; and expression vs. nonexpression.
9. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT)
CPMT holds that, in conflict with the desire to disclose personal information as a means of building intimacy (social penetration theory), individuals have a competing desire for privacy. It is premised on the assumption that people have “ownership” of their private information; that they control the use of this information through personal privacy rules; and that when this information is shared with others, they become co-owners of the information. Theorist Sandra Petronio cautioned that co-owners of private information need to decide on mutually agreed privacy rules on disclosure.
10. The Interaction View
The Interaction View falls under the Cybernetic Tradition, which means it adopts a systems-view of communication processes. In other words, communication occurs within interconnected, interdependent systems in which one person’s behavior affects everyone in the system. According to the theory, systems, by definition, resist change, which can be accomplished through “reframing” by all parties. The theory proposes four axioms as key to understanding (and changing) communication within the system.
11. Social judgment theory
Social judgment theory posits that the opinions individuals have/form on issues are situated on (and shift across) three latitudes: a latitude of acceptance (ideas viewed as reasonable or worth considering); a latitude of rejection (range of ideas dismissed as unreasonable); and a latitude of non-commitment (range of ideas to which person is indifferent). The ability to shift an individual’s opinion across these latitudes depends heavily on their “ego-involvement,” which is the importance of an issue to them. In addition, the theory suggests that people with heavy ego-involvement tend to over-react negatively to messages they disagree with, seeing them as much more objectionable than presented (contrast error). On the other hand, they over-react positively to messages they agree with, seeing them as much more appealing than presented (assimilation error).
12. Elaboration likelihood theory
This theory posits that the chances of successfully persuading an individual on an issue depend on the cognitive route that individual is predisposed to take, in message assessment or “elaboration.” Theorists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo identified two such routes, the central route, used by those who exert higher mental effort to scrutinize facts and arguments in the message, and the peripheral route, employed by those who prefer to use a mental shortcut process that is guided by “irrelevant cues” (e.g. celebrity endorsements, presenter’s personality) as opposed to high message elaboration. The theorists hold that decisions made by the central route are most strongly held and last longer, while those made by the peripheral route, are more fickle.
13. Cognitive dissonance theory
Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory asserts that human beings have a strong aversive drive to reconcile “dissonance” or conflict between their beliefs/attitudes/opinions and their behavior/actions/reality. Festinger’s theory includes a most paradoxical hypothesis (minimal justification hypothesis), that asserts that the best way to change someone’s belief is to change their action through a minimal amount of rewards or punishment that would lead to “compliance.” Faced with dissonance between his/her “compliance” behavior and his/her beliefs (which cannot be explained by the minimal reward/punishment), the individual would then cognitively align his beliefs to his actions, to eliminate the dissonance.
References
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment