Division 2 Human COMM theory

chapter 13

Caroline Haythornthwaite is the chief theorist behind media multiplexity theory, which originally took a cybernetic approach to understanding how and why we use different communication channelsThe theory claims that our social networks powerfully influence the media we use, including why we might choose one medium over another to send a greeting such as happy birthday.Perhaps even more important, the theory calls attention to the number of media we use with an interpersonal partner.Media multiplexity scholars are convinced of one simple fact: The stronger the relational tie we have with a person, the more media we will use with that person. II. Mapping our social networksScholars in the cybernetic tradition think we can map out what our relationships look like in a social network.Social network scholars call bonds weak ties if they don't consume much time or energy, like acquaintances, classmates, and distant relatives.In contrast, strong ties such as romantic partners, immediate family, and BFFs (best friends forever) demand that we make a significant investment in the relationship.Sociologist Mark Granovetter offered a more formal definition of tie strength, claiming it's a "combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confidence), and the reciprocal services" exchanged in the relationship.Cybernetic theorists want to understand how the structure of a network shapes the flow of information and resources between people. When are strong ties weak, and when are weak ties strong?With strong ties, we experience acceptance, intimacy, and enjoyment.Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter claimed he wasn't so sure that strong ties are always better than weak ties.He affirmed the importance of close relationships for understanding our identity, but noted that strong ties feature a major weakness: They're redundant when it comes to accessing information and resources.According to Granovetter, quick access to diverse information is one strength of weak ties.Among weak ties, bridging ties serve a particularly powerful role. They're the ties that connect one strong tie group to another.Granovetter's treatise on weak ties has inspired many scholars, including Haythornthwaite, who found his explanation of strong and weak ties particularly helpful for understanding the channels that sustain them. Media multiplexity: Tie strength involves the channels we use.Haythornthwaite sought to create maps of relationships in education contexts, with particular interest in courses that take place online—often with students located far apart from one another.At first, Haythornthwaite wanted to understand how online learners adapt to the computer-mediated environment: "What happens to such relationships when face-to-face contact is unavailable or severely limited?"But Haythornthwaite's findings soon drove her into unexplored terrain: "Asking 'who talks to whom about what and via which media' revealed the unexpected result that more strongly tied pairs make use of more of the available media, a phenomenon I have termed media multiplexity."What differentiated strong ties from weak ties was the number of media the pair employed. Greater tie strength seemed to drive greater numbers of media used.Although Haythornthwaite initially observed media multiplexity in educational and organizational groups, scholars in the socio-psychological tradition soon took her ideas and applied them to interpersonal contexts.The basic claim of media multiplexity theory: Tie strength drives use of multiple media.Claim #1: Communication content differs by tie strength, not by medium.Earlier theories of communication technology suggested some channels can't effectively facilitate the ambiguous messages common in close relationships.Media multiplexity theory and social information processing (SIP) theory agree that those earlier theories weren't quite right—people can and do maintain close ties online.SIP researchers have been most interested in the getting-to-know-you phase of relationship initiation, and they've pointed to the need for extended time during it.Media multiplexity theorists have been more interested in the maintenance of ongoing relationships, and they've pointed to the nature of the interpersonal tie itself.In her research, Haythornthwaite has found that the medium partners use doesn't change the topic of their talk.University of Illinois professor John Caughlin noted that media multiplexity theory has much to say on what media interpersonal partners use, but not how they link all those media together.Thus it may not be quite right to say that partners never choose different media for different content, but rather that they may pay a relational price for that kind of segmentation.Claim #2: The hierarchy of media use depends on group norms.According to multiplexity scholars, this allocation of different channels for different kinds of ties creates a hierarchy of media use expectations.In such a hierarchy, members of the group use some media to communicate with all relational ties, whether weak or strong.But pairs with a strong tie often feel they need more private channels to sustain their relationship.Haythornthwaite would be quick to point out that there's nothing sacred about any particular hierarchy of media use, because such hierarchies differ between groups.Claim #3: Adding and subtracting media access influences weak ties.Haythornthwaite would argue that the launch of Facebook created latent ties, or "connection[s] available technically, even if not yet activated socially."She thinks the impact of a loss of a communication medium would depend on the strength of your tie.Where a weak tie, with few other channels, might be heavily impacted, on the flip side, Haythornthwaite thinks strong ties are relatively unaffected by the loss of a medium.Because strong ties tend to communicate through several media, they have built-in redundancy that can withstand the loss of a channel.Overall, then, "a central thesis of MMT is that . . . changes to the media landscape alter strong ties only minimally, but may change the nature of weak ties considerably. Are media use and tie strength always associated with each other?As you'd expect for an objective theory steeped in both the cybernetic and socio-psychological traditions, scholars haven't taken the link between tie strength and media use for granted; they've gathered evidence to support that crucial belief.At the same time, their empirical detective work has found that the tie strength/media use link may depend on some other ingredients. If those factors aren't present, tie strength and media use may not be so tightly linked—if they're linked at all.One such factor is medium enjoyment, or one's preference for a specific medium, driven by the belief that it is fun and convenient.As the study of medium enjoyment in family relationships concluded, "Effective media choice does not match medium to message so much as medium to person." Critique: Strong on simplicity, weak on explanation and prediction.Media multiplexity theory is the youngest theory in this book, yet it has gained a sizable following among scholars within and outside the communication discipline."To date, [the theory] represents the most comprehensive and systematic attempt to explain how the multimodality of social life influences, and is influenced by, the characteristics of interpersonal relationships."One of the theory's greatest strengths is its relative simplicity.These hypotheses are testable, and as scholars have conducted quantitative research, the numbers have tended to support the theory's claims.Where the theory falters is its explanation of the data.Haythornthwaite seems to emphasize that tie strength drives channel expansion. Yet at other times, she acknowledges that increased communication probably strengthens the tie.Additional research on the theory's causality claims could enhance the theory's ability to predict future events.Despite the need for better prediction and explanation, the theory has demonstrated its practical utility.

chapter 16

Dissonance: Discord between behavior and belief.Identified by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance is the distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.Humans have a basic need to avoid dissonance and establish consistency.The tension of dissonance motivates the person to change either the behavior or the belief.The more important the issue and the greater the discrepancy, the higher the magnitude of dissonance. Health-conscious smokers: Dealing with dissonance.When Festinger first published his theory, he chose the topic of smoking to illustrate the concept of dissonance.Perhaps the most typical way for the smoker to avoid anguish is to trivialize or simply deny the link between smoking and cancer.Festinger noted that almost all of our actions are more entrenched than the thoughts we have about them. Reducing dissonance between attitudes and actions.Hypothesis #1: Selective exposure prevents dissonance.We avoid information that is likely to increase dissonance.People select information that lined up with what they already believed and ignored facts or ideas that ran counter to those beliefs.Dieter Frey concluded that selective exposure exists only when information is known to be a threat.Warm personal relationships are the best environment for considering discrepant views.Hypothesis #2: Post decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance.The more important the issue, the more dissonance.The longer an individual delays a choice between two equally attractive options, the more dissonance.The greater the difficulty in reversing the decision once it has been made, the more dissonance.Hypothesis #3: Minimal justification for action induces a shift in attitude.Conventional wisdom suggests that to change behavior, you must first alter attitude.Festinger reverses the sequence.In addition, he predicts that attitude change and dissonance reduction depend on providing only a minimum justification for the change in behavior. A classic experiment: "Would I lie for a dollar?"Festinger's minimal justification hypothesis is counterintuitive.The Stanford $1/$20 experiment supported the minimal justification hypothesis because subjects who received a very small reward demonstrated a change in attitude. Three state-of-the-art revisions: The cause and effect of dissonance.Most persuasion researchers today subscribe to one of three revisions of Festinger's original theory. A process model of cognitive dissonance helps us understand the three:Attitude/behavior inconsistency ⇒ Dissonance created ⇒ Attitude change ⇒ Dissonance reducedSelf-consistency: the rationalizing animal.Elliot Aronson argued that dissonance is caused by psychological rather than logical inconsistency.Inconsistency between a cognition and self-concept causes dissonance.Humans aren't rational, they are rationalizing.Research such as the $1/$20 experiment provides evidence of self-esteem maintenance.The amount of dissonance a person can experience is directly proportional to the effort he or she has invested in the behavior.Personal responsibility for bad outcomes (the new look).Joel Cooper argues that we experience dissonance when we believe our actions have unnecessarily hurt another person.Cooper concludes that dissonance is a state of arousal caused by behaving in such a way as to feel personally responsible for bringing about an aversive event.Self-affirmation to dissipate dissonance.Claude Steele focuses on dissonance reduction.He believes that high self-esteem is a resource for dissonance reduction.Steele asserts that most people are motivated to maintain a self-image of moral and adaptive adequacy.These three revisions of Festinger's theory are not mutually exclusive. Theory into practice: Persuasion through dissonance.Festinger's theory offers practical advice for those who wish to affect attitude change as a product of dissonance.Apply the concepts of selective exposure, postdecision dissonance, and minimal justification to manage dissonance effectively.As long as counterattitudinal actions are freely chosen and publicly taken, people are more likely to adopt beliefs that support what they've done.Personal responsibility for negative outcomes should be taken into account. Critique: Dissonance over dissonance.Cognitive dissonance is one of the few theories in this book that has achieved name recognition within popular culture as people have found it practically useful.Where the theory falls short is relative simplicity.Bem claims that self-perception is a much simpler explanation than cognitive dissonance.The theory has also received knocks for how difficult it is to actually observe dissonance.If researchers can't observe dissonance, then the theory's core hypotheses aren't testable—a big problem for a scientific theory.Patricia Devine applauds researchers who have attempted to gauge the arousal component of dissonance.The most promising attempts to develop a dissonance thermometer have used neuroimaging.It has provided initial hard evidence that the experience of cognitive dissonance is, indeed, real.Even so, actually observing it is difficult and expensive, so even if the theory is testable, it certainly isn't simple.Despite detractors, cognitive dissonance theory has energized objective scholars of communication for 50 years.

chapter 6

Introduction. A. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen regret the fact that most communication theorists and practitioners hold to a transmission model of communication. B. They'd say that seeing communication as a transmission of ideas looks through communication rather than directly at it. C. In contrast, Pearce and Cronen offer the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) as a theory that looks directly at the communication process and what it's doing. D. They believe that communication is a constitutive force that shapes all of our ideas, our relationships, and whole social environment. First Claim: Our communication creates our social worlds A. Selves, relationships, organizations, communities, and cultures are the "stuff" that make up our social worlds. B. For CMM theorists, our social worlds are not something we find or discover. Instead, we create them. C. Barnett Pearce summed up this core concept of the theory by asserting that persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create. D. Using M.C. Escher's lithograph, Bond of Union, the authors draw three parallels. 1. The experience of persons-in-conversation is the primary social process of human life. 1. The figures in the lithograph are bound together regardless of what they are talking about; the content is less important than the way they say it. 2.The endless ribbon in the Bond loops back to reform both persons-in-conversation, demonstrating reflectivity. E. As social constructionists, CMM researchers see themselves as curious participants in a pluralistic world. 1. They are curious rather than certain. 2. They are participants rather than spectators. 3.They live in pluralist worlds rather than seek a singular Truth. Second claim: The stories we tell differ from the stories we live A. CMM uses the term story to refer to much of what we say when we talk with others about our social worlds—ourselves, others, relationships, organizations, or the larger community B. CMM theorists distinguish between stories lived and stories told. 1. Stories told are tales we tell ourselves and others in order to make sense of the world around us and our place in it. 2. CMM calls this process coherence, the making and managing of meaning. 3. The management of meaning involves the adjustment of our stories told to fit the reality of stories lived—or vice versa. 3. Stories lived are the co-constructed actions we perform with others. 5. Coordination takes place when we fit our stories lived into the stories lived by others in a way that makes life better. C. Stories told: Making and managing meaning. 1. The stories we tell or hear are never as simple as they seem. 2. LUUUUTT is an acronym to label the seven types of stories. a.Lived stories b.Unknown stories c.Untold stories d. Unheard stories e. Untellable stories f. Story Telling g. Stories Told 3. There is no correct story or correct interpretation of it. CMM theorists created the LUUUUTT model to demonstrate the complexity of social situations. D. Stories lived: Coordinating our patterns of interaction 1.There's almost always a difference or tension between our stories told and stories lived. 2. Pearce and Cronen are particularly concerned with the patterns of communication we create with others. 3. The serpentine model can map out the history and provide insight into persons-in conversation. 4. Logical force is the moral pressure or sense of obligation a person feels to respond in a given way. 5. CMM describes this type of conversational sequence as an unwanted repetitive pattern (URP) which neither party wants to repeat but they keep reliving it. 6. Coordination refers to the "process by which persons collaborate in an attempt to bring into being their vision of what is necessary, noble, and good and to preclude the enactment of what they fear, hate, or despise." 7. Pearce used the phrase coordination without coherence to refer to people cooperating, but for quite different reasons. Third Claim: We get what we make. A. Since CMM claims we create our social worlds through our patterns of communication, it follows that we get what we make. B. Barnett Pearce urged that we ask three questions when we reflect on past interactions: how did that get made? What are we making? What can we do to make better social worlds? C. The authors illustrate the principle with an extended example between Em and Bea. D. A bifurcation point is the turning point in a conversation where what one says next affects the unfolding pattern of interaction and takes it in a different direction. Fourth Claim: Get the pattern right, create better social worlds A. Barnett Pearce admitted he couldn't be specific on what to do to make social worlds better. B. Barnett and Kim Pearce describe better social worlds as replete with caring, compassion, love, and grace among its inhabitants—not the stated goal of most communication theories. C. The theorists claim is that one does not need to be a saint, a genius, or an orator to create a better social worked. The communicator, however, must be mindful. D. Mindfulness is a presence or awareness of what participants are making in the midst of their conversation. E. For an overall remedy to unsatisfactory or destructive patterns of interaction, CMM theorists advocate dialogue, a specific form of communication that they believe will create a social world where we can live with dignity, honor, joy, and love. F. Barnett and Kim Pearce have adopted Jewish philosopher Martin Buber's perspective on dialogue. Ethical reflection: Martin Buber's Dialogic Ethics. A. Buber, a German Jewish philosopher, focused his ethical approach on the relationship between people rather than on moral codes of conduct B. He contrasted two types of relationships—I-It versus I-Thou.I-It treats the other person as an object to be manipulated.I-Thou treats our partner as the very one we are.For Buber, dialogue is a synonym for ethical communication.Buber used the image of the narrow ridge to illustrate the tension of dialogic communication.Duquesne University communication ethicist Ron Arnett notes that "living the narrow ridge philosophy requires a life of personal and interpersonal concern, which is likely to generate a more complicated existence than that of the egoist or the selfless martyr." Critique: Highly practical as it moves from confusion to clarity.By offering such diagnostic tools as the serpentine and LUUUUTT models of communication, CMM promotes a deeper understanding of people and of the social worlds they create through their conversation.Unlike many theories which seek only to describe communication patterns, CMM theorists and the researchers they inspire make it clear that their aim is to make better social worlds.Although many objective theorists dismiss CMM because of its social constructionist assumptions, CMM has generated widespread interest and acceptance within the community of interpretive communication scholars.If changing destructive patterns of communication in whole communities strikes you as a bit of a stretch, you should know that pursuit of this goal is why Barnett and Kim Pearce founded the Public Dialogue Consortium and the CMM Institute.CMM scholars and practitioners use a wide range of qualitative research methods—textual and narrative analyses, case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and collaborative action researchThe aesthetic standard for an interpretive theory has two components—artistry and clarity. For some who have immersed themselves in CMM literature both Barnett and Kim Pearce's often poetic language reflects the beauty of the human soul and the world as it could be. Yet for others, lack of clarity is a real problem.

Chapter 5

Introduction. A. Social constructionists believe that our thoughts, self-concept, and the wider community we live in are created through communication—symbolic interaction. B. Symbolic interaction refers to language and gestures a person used in anticipation of the way others will respond. C. George Herbert Mead, an early social constructionist, was an influential philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, but he never published his ideas. D. After his death, his students published his teachings in Mind, Self, and Society.Mead's chief disciple, Herbert Blumer, further developed his theory. 1. Blumer coined the term symbolic interactionism, and claimed that the most human and humanizing activity in which people are engaged is communicating. 2. The three core principles of symbolic interactionism are concerned with meaning, language and thinking. 3. These principles lead to conclusions about the formation of self and socialization into a larger society. Meaning: The construction of social reality. A. First principle: Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. B. Once people define a situation as real, it's very real in its consequences. C. Where a behavioral scientist would see causality as stimulus ? response, for an interactionist it would look like stimulus? interpretation ? response. Language: The source of meaning. A. Second principle: Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each other. B. Meaning is not inherent in objects. C. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism. D. As human beings, we have the ability to name things. 1. Symbols, including names, are arbitrary signs. 2. By talking with others, we ascribe meaning to words and develop a universe of discourse. E. Symbolic naming is the basis for society—the extent of knowing is dependent on the extent of naming. F. Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret the world. 1. A symbol is a stimulus that has a learned meaning and a value for people. 2. Our words have default assumptions.Significant symbols can be nonverbal as well as linguistic. Thinking: The process of taking the role of the other A. Third principle: An individual's interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought process. B. Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation, or minding. 1. Minding is a reflective pause. 2.We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out meaning. C. Whereas animals act instinctively and without deliberation, humans are hardwired for thought. 1. Humans require social stimulation and exposure to abstract symbol systems to have conceptual thought. 2. Language is the software that activates the mind. D. Humans have the unique capacity to take the role of the other. The self: Reflections in a looking glass. A. Self cannot be found through introspection, but instead through taking the role of the other and imaging how we look from the other's perspective. This mental image is called the looking-glass self and is socially constructed, or as the Mead-Cooley hypothesis claims, "individuals' self-conceptions result from assimilating the judgments of significant others." B. Self is a function of language. 1. One has to be a member of a community before consciousness of self sets in. 2. The self is always in flux. C. Self is an ongoing process combining the "I" and the "me." 1. The "I"—the subjective self—sponsors what is novel, unpredictable, and unorganized about the self. 2. The "me"—the objective self—is the image of self seen through the looking glass of other people's reactions. 3. Once your "I" is known, it becomes your "me." Society: The socializing effect of others' expectations. A. The composite mental image of others in a community, their expectations, and possible responses is referred to as the generalized other. B. The generalized other shapes how we think and interact with the community. C. The "me" is formed through continual symbolic interaction. D. The "me" is the organized community within the individual. A sampler of applied symbolic interaction. A. Creating reality. 1. Erving Goffman develops the metaphor of social interaction as a dramaturgical performance. 2. The impression of reality fostered by performance is fragile. B. Meaning-ful research. 1. Mead advocated study through participant observation, a form of ethnography. 2.Experimental and survey research are void of the meaning of the experience. C. Generalized other—the tragic potential of symbolic interaction: Negative responses can consequently reduce a person to nothing. D. Naming. 1. Name-calling can be devastating because it forces us to view ourselves through a warped mirror. 2. These grotesque images are not easily dispelled. E. Self-fulfilling prophecy. 1. Each of us affects how others view themselves. 2. Our expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. F. Symbol manipulation—symbols can galvanize people into united action. Ethical reflection: Levinas' responsive "I" A. Levinas insists that the identity of our "I" is formed by the way we respond to others, not how others respond to me as Mead contends. B. We all have an ethical echo of responsibility to take care of each other that has existed since the beginning of history. C. To not recognize our human responsibility when we look at the face of the Other is to put our identity at risk. Critique: Setting the gold standard for four interpretive criteria. A. Mead meets clarification of values, offers a new understanding of people, uses ethnographic research, and has generated a community of agreement. B. Mead does not call for a reform of society. In fact, he says little about power, domination, or emotion. The theory has fluid boundaries, vague concepts, and an undisciplined approach that lacks aesthetic appeal. C. Mead overstates his case when he maintains that language is the distinguishing factor between humans and other animals.

Chapter 9

Introduction.Charles Berger notes that the beginnings of personal relationships are fraught with uncertainties.Uncertainty reduction theory focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding.Any of three prior conditions—anticipation of future interaction, incentive value, or deviance—can boost our drive to reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty reduction: To predict and explain.Berger's emphasis on explanation (our inferences about why people do what they do) comes from the attribution theory of Fritz Heider.There are at least two types of uncertainty.Behavioral questions, which are often reduced by following accepted procedural protocols.Cognitive questions, which are reduced by acquiring information. Cognitive uncertainty is what Berger is addressing. An axiomatic theory: Certainty about uncertainty.Berger proposes a series of axioms to explain the connection between uncertainty and eight key variables.Axioms are traditionally regarded as self-evident truths that require no additional proof.Axiom 1, verbal communication: As the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty decreases, and as a result, verbal communication increases.Axiom 2, nonverbal warmth: As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease. Decreases in uncertainty level will 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 produce 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, while a lack of shared networks increases uncertainty. Theorems: The logical force of uncertainty axioms.Through pairing axioms, Berger creates 28 theorems.These 28 theorems suggest a comprehensive theory of interpersonal development based on the importance of reducing uncertainty in human interaction. Message plans to cope with uncertain responses.Berger concluded that most social interaction is goal-driven: we have reasons for saying what we say.Berger claims plans are hierarchically organized with abstract representations at the top of the hierarchy and progressively more concrete representation toward the bottom.Switching strategies at the top of the hierarchy causes changes down the hierarchy, altering behavior.Uncertainty is central to all social interaction.There is an interaction between uncertainty reduction theory and plan-based message production that suggests various strategies individuals use to cope with uncertainty and hedge against risk when deploying messages.Uncertainty reduction theorists have outlined four approaches we can use to reduce uncertainty.Using a passive strategy, we unobtrusively observe others from a distance.In an active strategy, we ask a third party for information.With an interactive strategy, we talk face-to-face with the other person and ask specific questions.The extractive strategy involves searching for information online.The complexity of a message plan is measured in two ways—the level of detail the plan includes and the number of contingency plans prepared in case the original one doesn't work.Berger catalogs a series of planned hedges that allow a somewhat gracious retreat to "save face" when at least one of them miscalculated.The hierarchy hypothesis: When individuals are thwarted in their attempts to achieve goals, their first tendency is to alter lower-level elements of their message. Reducing uncertainty in ongoing relationships: Relational turbulence theoryCan uncertainty also wreak havoc in ongoing relationships?Leanne Knobloch suggests that uncertainty in close relationships arises from whether we're sure about our own thoughts, those of the other person, and the future of the relationship.Some life circumstances tend to generate relational uncertainty though it can occur at any point.Couples also experience partner interference as they learn to coordinate their individual goals, plans, and activities in ways that don't annoy each other.In times of relational turbulence, we're likely to feel unsettling emotions like anger, sadness, and fear.Over time, turbulence leads to even more uncertainty and interference, which then creates more turbulence—a vicious cycle that could threaten the health of the relationship.Knobloch's research supports the relational turbulence theory across many types of romantic relationships, ranging from couples facing clinical depression to military spouses returning from deployment. Critique: Nagging doubts about uncertainty.Berger's uncertainty reduction theory was an early prototype of what an objective theory should be and it continues to inspire a new generation of scholars today.As Berger himself admits, his original statement contained some propositions of dubious validity.Critics such as Kathy Kellermann consider theorem 17 particularly flawed.The tight logical structure of the theory doesn't allow us to reject one theorem without questioning the axioms behind it.In the case of theorem 17, axioms 3 and 7 must also be suspect.Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds challenge the motivational assumption of axiom 3.They also have undermined the claim that motivation to search for information is increased by anticipation of future interaction, incentive value, and deviance.Michael Sunnafrank challenges Berger's claim that uncertainty reduction is the key to understanding early encounters.He believes that predicted outcome value more accurately explains communication in early encounters.Berger insists that you can't predict outcome values until you reduce uncertainty.Walid Afifi thinks both theories are too narrow. In his theory of motivated information management, he suggests we're most motivated to reduce anxiety rather than uncertainty.Despite these problems, Berger's theory has stimulated considerable discussion within the discipline.

chapter 8

Introduction.Developed by social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, social penetration theory explains how relational closeness develops.Closeness develops only if individuals proceed in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes. Personality structure: a multilayered onion.The outer layer is the public self.The inner core is one's private domain. Closeness through self-disclosure.The main route to deep social penetration is through self-disclosure.With the onion-wedge model, the depth of penetration represents the degree of personal disclosure.The layers of the onion are tougher near the center. The depth and breadth of self-disclosure.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information.Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in early stages of relationship development.Penetration is rapid at the start, but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached.Societal norms prevent too much early self-disclosure.Most relationships stall before a stable intimate exchange is established.Genuine intimate exchange is rare but when it is achieved, relationships become meaningful and enduring.Sharing personal narratives, which tend to contain a carefully structured story, deeper emotion, and greater detail than other shared information, is a quick path to stronger bonds.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.For true intimacy, depth and breadth of penetration are equally important. Regulating closeness on the basis of rewards and costs.Social penetration theory draws heavily on the social exchange theory of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley.If perceived mutual benefits outweigh the costs of greater vulnerability, the process of social penetration will proceed.Three important concepts are: relational outcome; relational satisfaction; and relational stability. Relational outcome: Rewards minus costs.Thibaut and Kelley suggest that people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place.The economic approach to determining behavior dates from John Stuart Mill's principle of utility.The minimax principle of human behavior claims that people seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs.The higher we index a relational outcome, the more attractive the behavior that might make it happen.Social exchange theory assumes that people can accurately gauge the benefits of their actions and make sensible choices based on their predictions.As relationships develop, the nature of interaction that friends find rewarding evolves. Gauging relational satisfaction- The comparison level (CL).A person's CL is the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive.One's CL for friendship, romance, or family ties is pegged by one's relational history, the baseline of past experience.Sequence and trends play large roles in evaluating a relationship. Gauging relational stability- The comparison level of alternatives (CLalt).The CLalt is the best relational outcomes currently available outside the relationship.While one's CL is relatively stable over time, CLalt compares the options at the current moment.When existent outcomes slide below an established CLalt, relational instability increases.Social exchange theories have an economic orientation.The CLalt explains why people sometimes stay in unsatisfying relationships.Some women endure abuse because Outcome > CLalt.They will leave only when CLalt > Outcome.The relative values of Outcome, CL, and CLalt help determine one's willingness to disclose.Optimum disclosure will occur when both parties believe that Outcome > CLalt > CL.A relationship can be more than satisfying if it is stable, but other satisfying options are also available (in case this relationship turns sour). Ethical reflection: Epicurus' ethical egoism.Psychological egoism reflects many social scientists' conviction that all of us are motivated by self-interest.Ethical egoism claims we should act selfishly.Epicurus emphasized the passive pleasures of friendship, good digestion, and above all, the absence of pain.Other philosophers (Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand) echo the Epicurean call for selfish concern. Dialectics and the environment.Altman originally thought that openness is the predominant quality of relationship changes. The desire for privacy may counteract a unidirectional quest for intimacy.A dialectical model suggests that human social relationships are characterized by openness or contact and closedness or separateness between participants.Altman also identified the environment as a heuristic cue that might guide our decisions to disclose.Disclosing of one's self may include both our cognitive space (our minds, thoughts) and our physical space or territory.Sandra Petronio's Communication Privacy Management theory maps out the intricate ways people manage boundaries around their personal information. Critique: Pulling back from social penetration.Petronio thinks it's simplistic to equate self-disclosure with relational closeness.She also challenges the theorists' view of disclosure boundaries as being fixed and increasingly less permeable.Can a complex blend of advantages and disadvantages be reliably reduced to a single index?Are people so consistently selfish that they always opt to act strictly in their own best interest?Paul Wright believes that friendships often reach a point of such closeness that self-centered concerns are no longer salient.

chapter 12

Introduction.Petronio sees communication privacy management theory as a map of the way people navigate privacy.Privacy boundaries are barriers that determine how much information one shares with another.Petronio sees communication privacy management theory (CPM) as a description of a privacy management system that contains three main parts.The first part of the system, privacy ownership, contains our privacy boundaries that encompass information that we have but others don't know.Privacy control, the second part of the system, involves our decision to share private information with another person.Privacy turbulence, the third part of the privacy management system, comes into play when managing private information doesn't go the way we expect.Having a mental image of these three parts of the privacy management system is helpful in understanding the five core principles of Petronio's CPM. The first four deal with issues of privacy ownership and control; the fifth involves privacy turbulence—the turmoil that erupts when rules are broken.There are five core principles of CPM:People believe they own and have a right to control their private information.People control their private information through the use of personal privacy rules.When others are told or given access to a person's private information, they become co-owners of that information.Co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others.When co-owners of private information don't effectively negotiate and follow mutually held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is the likely result. Ownership and control of private information: People believe they own and have a right to control their private information.Petronio prefers the term disclosure of private information in place of self-disclosure for four reasons.A lot of private information we tell others is not about ourselves.Self-disclosure is usually associated with intimacy, but there can be other motives for disclosure.It has a neutral connotation, whereas self-disclosure has a positive feel.It draws attention to the content of what is said and how the confidant responds.We regard private information as something we own.Petronio defines privacy as "the feeling one has the right to own private information."Ownership conveys rights and obligations.Privacy boosts our sense of autonomy and makes us feel less vulnerable.Our sense of ownership motivates us to create boundaries that will control the spread of what we know. Rules for concealing and revealing: People control their private information through the use of personal privacy rules.An easy way to grasp what she means is to remember that people usually have rules for managing their private information.Five factors play into the development of a person's unique privacy rules including culture, gender, motivation, context, and risk/benefit ratio.Cultures differ on the value of openness and disclosure.With regards to gender, popular wisdom suggests that women disclose more than men, yet research on this issue is mixed at best.Petronio emphasizes attraction and liking as interpersonal motives that can loosen privacy boundaries that could not otherwise be breached.Traumatic events can temporarily or permanently disrupt the influence of culture, gender, and motivation when people craft their rules for privacy.Risk/benefit ratios do the math for revealing as well as concealing private information. Disclosure creates a confidant and co-owner: When others are told or discover a person's private information, they become co-owners of that information.The act of disclosing private information creates a confidant and draws that person into a collective privacy boundary.Disclosing information to another person results in co-ownership.The discloser must realize the personal privacy boundary has morphed into a collective boundary that seldom shrinks back to being solely personal.As co-owners, people tend to feel responsibility for the information, though not always equally.Those who had the information foisted upon them may be more casual about protecting it. Coordinating mutual privacy boundaries: Co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others.This pivotal fourth principle of CPM is where Petronio moves from being descriptive to prescriptive.Assuming the privacy boundaries co-owners place around the information are different, co-owners must negotiate mutual privacy boundaries—collective boundaries that people shape together.Boundary ownership is the rights and responsibilities that co-owners of private information have to control its spread.Not all boundary ownership is 50-50.A deliberate confidant is someone who intentionally seeks private information, and often the more eager they are to be confided in, the less control they have over what they hear.A reluctant confidant doesn't want the disclosure, doesn't expect it, may find the revealed information an unwelcome burden, and often feels only a vague sense of responsibility to disclosed information, resulting in less of an obligation to follow the privacy guidelines of the discloser.A shareholder is fully committed to handling private information according to the original owner's privacy rules.A stakeholder deserves access and control regarding private information and the rules for sharing it.Boundary linkage is the process of the confidant being linked into the privacy boundary of the person who revealed the information.Boundary linkage is the process of determining who else gets to know.When the revealer and recipient have a close relationship, the recipient is more likely to deal with the new information the way the revealer wants. E. Boundary permeability—How much information can flow?1. Boundaries can be closed, thick, or stretched tight allowing little information to pass through, or boundaries can be open, thin, or loosely held allowing information to easily pass through.2. Permeability is a matter of degree.3. Rules act as filters, letting some information pass easily through, while other information is closely guarded.4. Disclosers and receivers need to negotiate mutual rules for possible third-party dissemination. VI. Boundary turbulence - Relationships at risk: When co-owners of private information don't effectively negotiate and follow jointly held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is the likely result.Turbulence can radically alter our relationships by the way it affects our thoughts, feelings, and actions.Petronio predicts that people react to turbulence in attempts to regulate the disturbed relationships that it creates.Fuzzy boundaries occur when there are no recognized mutual boundaries, in which case a confidant resorts to using their own privacy rules to guide what they say to others.Intentional breaches occur when a confidant purposefully reveals a secret they know the original owner does not want shared.They may do so to intentionally hurt the original owner or simply because to do so works to their personal advantage.A confidentiality dilemma occurs when a confidant must breach a collective privacy boundary in order to promote the original owner's welfareNot all boundary and relational turbulence comes from privacy rules out of sync or the intentional breach of boundaries.Sometimes people create turmoil by making mistakes, such as letting secrets slip out when their guard is down or simply forgetting who might have access to the information.Errors of judgment occur when someone discusses private cases in public places.A miscalculation in timing can cause turbulence when information is revealed at a bad time. Critique: Keen diagnosis, good prescription, cure in process?CPM nicely meets five of the six criteria for a good interpretive theory.It scores well on providing a new understanding of people, backing that up by sound qualitative research, the support of a community of agreement, clarifying privacy as a value, and calling for reform (though that is a bit of a stretch).CPM lacks aesthetic appeal, in both style and clarity.A gap in the theory is that Petronio does not offer insight on how to conduct negotiations or offer solutions for when boundary turbulence occurs.Over the 35 years in working with the theory, she's acknowledged the theory's ambiguities and repackaged things for improved clarity.

chapter 10

Introduction.Rapid changes in communication technology over the past several decades have frustrated communication scholars seeking to understand what all of this means for interpersonal relationships.Walther initially developed SIP to understand how online communication shapes the development of interpersonal and group relationships.His experiments suggest that people can indeed form relationships online that are just as satisfying—in fact, sometimes even more satisfying—than their offline interactions. Online versus face-to-face: A sip instead of a gulp.Walther labeled his theory social information processing (SIP) because he believes relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form impressions.It's a chain of events that occurs regardless of the medium we're using to communicate: we get information, we form an impression, and then the relationship grows.SIP focuses on the how the first link of the chain looks a bit different when communicating online.Although we can use these technologies to communicate with images and video, SIP focuses on online communication that is textual.Before SIP, many communication theorists shared a cues filtered out interpretation of online messages. They believed the lack of nonverbal cues would disrupt the process of gaining information and forming an impression.Flaming is use of hostile language that zings its target, creating a toxic climate for relationship development and growth.Walther doesn't think the loss of nonverbal cues is necessarily fatal or even injurious to a well-defined impression of the other or the relational development it triggers.Two features of online communication provide a rationale for SIP theory.Verbal cues: CMC users can create fully formed impressions of others based solely on linguistic content of messages.Extended time: Though the exchange of social information is slower online versus face-to-face, over time the relationships formed are not weaker or more fragile. Verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbal cues.Based on Mehrabian's seminal research on inconsistent messages, people gave nonverbal cues more weight when interpreting messages where verbal and nonverbal channels clash.Nonverbal cues become less powerful when they don't conflict with the verbal message or when we're conveying facts.Walter claims we can replace nonverbal cues with verbal messages that convey the same meaning.This ability to convert nonverbal cues into verbal meaning isn't new; earlier examples include pen-pal relationships. Experimental support for a counter-intuitive ideaWalther isn't content to rely on anecdotes for support of his theory.Walther and his colleagues ran studies to test how online communicators pursue their social goals and if affinity can be expressed through a digital medium.In their study, the participants discussed a moral dilemma with a stranger via either online or face-to-face. The stranger was in actuality a research confederate told to pursue a specific communication goal. Half the confederates were told to interact in a friendly manner and the remaining pairs were told to interact in an unfriendly manner.The method of communication made no difference in the emotional tone perceived by the participants.Self-disclosure, praise, and explicit statements of affection successfully communicated warmth.In face-to-face interactions, participants relied on facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body position, and other nonverbal cues to communicate affiliation.Compared to visually-oriented channels, building warmth over texting might take longer. Extended time: The crucial variable in online communication.According to Walther, online communicators need a lot of time to build close connections.Rather than drinking a glass by taking big gulps, smaller sips will take more time.Over an extended period, the issue is not the amount of social information that can be conveyed online; rather, it's the rate at which that information mounts up.Messages spoken in person take at least four times as long to say them online. This differential may explain why online interactions are perceived as impersonal and task-oriented.Since online exchanges convey messages more slowly, Walther advises users to send messages more often.Anticipated future interaction and chronemic cues may also contribute to intimacy on the Internet.People will trade more relational messages if they think they may meet again and this anticipated future interaction motivates them to develop the relationship.Walther believes that chronemic cues, or nonverbal indicators of how people perceive, use, or respond to issues of time, are never filtered out completely when communicating online.Walther claims that sometimes, online exchanges actually surpass the quality of relational communication that's available when parties talk face-to-face. Hyperpersonal perspective: Closer online than in person.Walther uses the term hyperpersonal to label online relationships that are more intimate than if partners were physically together.He classifies four types of media effects that occur precisely because communicators aren't face-to-face and have limited nonverbal cues.Sender: Selective self-presentationThrough selective self-presentation, people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression.As a relationship develops, they can carefully edit the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure to conform to their cyber image, without worrying that nonverbal leakage will shatter their projected persona.Receiver: Overattribution of similarityAttribution is a perceptual process where we observe people's actions and try to figure out what they're really like.In the absence of other cues, we are likely to overattribute the information we have and create an idealized image of the sender.Channel: Communicating on your own timeMany forms of online communication are asynchronous channels of communication, meaning that parties can use them nonsimultaneously—at different times.A benefit is the ability to edit when dealing with touchy issues, misunderstandings, or conflict between parties.Feedback: Self-fulfilling prophecyA self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for a person's expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was anticipated.Self-fulfilling prophecy is triggered when the hyperpositive image is intentionally or inadvertently fed back to the other person.Beyond online dating, Walther suggests hyperpersonal communication may improve relationships between groups with a strong history of tension and conflict, such as Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims.Based on his research, Walther suggests that in order to ease tensions, communicators should focus on common tasks rather than group differences, allowing plenty of time for communication, and exclusively using text-only channels. The warranting value of information: What to trust?Hyperpersonal effects aren't likely to occur when people don't trust each other.Walther and his colleagues have examined how people evaluate the credibility of others through social media.Social media sites display two types of information—that controlled by the profile owner and that beyond the owner's direct control.Walther's investigation of the warranting value of personal information, or what he describes as "the perceived validity of information presented online with respect to illuminating someone's offline characteristics," examined what information is believed when posted online.Information is believed if it has warranting value. Does their online profile match their offline characteristics?Like email messages, whose content is under the sole control of the sender, information posted by a profile owner is low warrant information because he or she can manipulate it with ease.Since the profile owner can't as easily manipulate what's posted by friends, we're more likely to accept such high warrant information as true.Walther's experiments confirm that people trust high warrant information. Critique: A good objective theory in need of update.Because technology changes so rapidly, it's difficult to craft and defend enduring theories of online communication.Yet in this train of high-tech innovation, SIP remains popular among communication scholars because it stacks up well against all the criteria for a good social science theory.However, the invention of smartphones and the subsequent explosion of social media may reduce the scope and validity of Walther's theory.In contrast, the qualitative research of Sherry Turkle, Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT, suggests that the connectivity provided by mobile phones has unanticipated consequences that Walther hasn't addressed in the two decades since he crafted his theory.She's convinced this continuous distraction [by mobile technology] deflects us from that which makes us truly human—conversation, intimacy, and empathy.Turkle claims that for those brought up with Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp and other smartphone social apps, face-to-face conversation is becoming a lost art.In their increasing flight from conversation, people who log on to social media constantly give up the possibility of closeness or intimacy with a special few in order to make weak connections with hundreds of "friends."Turkle believes the ability to feel what others feel is developed through face-to-face conversations, not through social media.

chapter 11

IntroductionLeslie Baxter's theory of relational dialectics treats discourse as the essence of close ties.By focusing on talk, Baxter separates relational dialectics theory from many of the other interpersonal theories in this book.Relational dialectics is about the struggle between discourses, and these unceasing struggles are "located in the relationship between parties, produced and reproduced through the parties' joint communicative activity."Despite the fact that we tend to think of struggle and competition as detrimental to intimate relationships, Baxter believes good things emerge from competing discourses. Discourses that create meaningThe central concept of relational dialectics theory is the discourse, or "a set of propositions that cohere around a given object of meaning."To help make sense of the world of discourse, Baxter draws heavily on the thinking of 20th century Russian intellectual Mikhail Bakhtin.Bakhtin's philosophy criticized monologue—a mode of talking that emphasizes one official discourse and silences all others.Bakhtin embraced dialogue as "a process in which unity and difference, in some form, are at play, both with and against one another."Although Baxter believes discourses create any interpersonal connection, most of the recent research on the theory has investigated the family. Caught in a chain of utterancesTalk reverberates with words spoken before, words yet to come, and words that speakers may never dare to voice.Baxter calls them utterances linked together in a chain.Baxter insists we consider discourses on two dimensions.The first dimension categorizes discourses by who speaks them: nearby (or proximal) discourses that occur between the mother and daughter versus distant discourses spoken by other people, such as third parties and people in the broader culture.The second dimension categorizes dimensions by time: already-spoken discourses in the past versus not-yet-spoken discourses anticipated in the future.Together, these intersect to form four 'links' in the utterance chain that create the utterance's meaning.Bakhtin and Baxter believe dialectical tension provides an opportunity to work out ways to mutually embrace the conflict between unity with and differentiation from each other. Three common dialectics that shape relationshipsAcross hundreds of interviews about close ties, Baxter heard people voice three recurring themes: integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-nonexpression.In her first iteration of the theory, she called these contradictions. She no longer prefers that word, since it may tempt people to think she's talking about psychological conflict between different desires.Baxter thinks we have such internal motivations, but because she takes communication seriously, she thinks cultural discourses create and shape them.Baxter refers to these themes as discursive struggles or competing discourses.The Internal Dialectic describes the three dialectics as they shape the relationship between two people.The External Dialectic describes the dialectics as they create the relationship between two people and the community around them. Integration and separation.Within any given relationship, Baxter regards the discursive struggle between connection and autonomy as foundational.If one side prevails, the relationship loses.The discourses of integration and separation also address a pair's inclusion with and seclusion from other people in their social network Stability and change.Without the spice of variety to season our time together, relationships become bland, boring, and, ultimately, emotionally dead.The external version of certainty/uncertainty is conventionality/uniqueness.Discourses of conventionality consider how a relationship is similar to other relationships, while discourses of uniqueness emphasize difference. Expression and nonexpression.The discourse of expression clashes with the discourse of nonexpression.Just as the openness-closedness dialectic is an ongoing discursive struggle within a relationship,couples and families also face choices about what information to reveal or conceal from third parties. How meaning emerges from struggles between discoursesNot all discourses are equal: it's common for some discourses to possess more prominence than others.Baxter and Bakhtin refer to powerful discourses as centrifugal or dominant (at the center) and those at the margins as centripetal or marginalized.Baxter draws on the discourse of the critical tradition to elaborate her view of power.Baxter chooses not to focus on the management of discourses because saying that people "manage" discourses "implies that contradictions, or discursive struggles, exist outside of communication."She'd rather consider how patterns of talk position certain discourses as dominant or marginalized.Her work has identified two such overarching patterns, differentiated by time.In one pattern, competing discourses ebb and flow but never appear together, called diachronic separation.In contrast, synchronic interplay voices multiple discourses in the same time and place. Diachronic Separation: Different discourses at different times.According to Baxter, diachronic separation isn't unusual.Simultaneous expression of opposing voices is the exception rather than the rule.Baxter has identified two typical patterns of diachronic separation:Spiraling inversion involves switches back and forth across time between two contrasting discourses, voicing one and then the other.Segmentation compartmentalizes different aspects of the relationship.Compared to the monologue of one dominant discourse, Baxter thinks diachronic separation is a step in the right direction. Synchronic Interplay: Different Discourses at the Same TimeBaxter's findings describe four forms of synchronic interplay, starting with those that are more like a monologue and moving to those that are more dialogic.Negating mentions a marginalized discourse in order to dismiss it as unimportant.Countering replaces an expected discourse with an alternative discourse.Entertaining recognizes that every discourse has alternativesTransforming combines two or more discourses, changing them into something new.Perhaps the highest form of transformation is the aesthetic moment: "a momentary sense of unity through a profound respect for the disparate voices in dialogue." Dialogue creates our relational worldsScholars of relational dialectics think communication creates and sustains relationships—in other words, the relationship exists in communication.Discursive struggles are what give interpersonal relationships their meaning.If Baxter, Mead, Pearce and Cronen are right, if the discourses voiced by partners change, so does their relationship.The ubiquity of such struggling discourses means that developing and sustaining a relationship is bound to be an unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate process.Since a relationship is created through dialogue, it's always in dialectical flux.This chaotic jumble of competing voices is far removed from such idyllic notions of communication as a one-way route to interpersonal closeness, shared meaning, or increased certainty. Ethical reflection: Sissela Bok's Principle of Veracity.Baxter argues for a critical sensibility that's suspicious of dominant voices, especially those that suppress marginalized discourses. She opposes any communication practice that ignores or gags another's voice.Philosopher Sissela Bok believes lying can do that, but rejects an absolute prohibition of lying.Bok doesn't view lies as neutral. She is convinced that all lies drag around an initial negative weight that must be factored into any ethical equation.Her principle of veracity asserts that, "truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special consideration."Bok contends that we need the principle of veracity because liars engage in a tragic self-delusion. Critique: Is relational dialectics theory just one discourse among many?It's hard to identify an interpersonal communication theory in this book that Baxter doesn't criticize.Baxter is particularly tough on scientific scholarship.It's unclear how this marginalization of mathematical voices accords with her call for the emergence of new meaning from discourses in interplay.Relational dialectics theory stacks up quite well as an interpretative theory.The theory offers a new way to make sense out of close relationships.Leslie Baxter's work has inspired a generation of relational dialectics scholars, and they're continuing her work.By encouraging a diverse group of people to talk about their relationships, and taking what they say seriously, Baxter models the high value that Bakhtin placed on hearing multiple voices.Not only does Baxter listen to multiple voices, but her theory seeks to carve out a space where marginalized voices can be heard.The theory emphasizes the importance of qualitative work when using the theory.Baxter holds out the promise of an aesthetic ideal to which all of us can aspire—an image that could make slogging through the morass of struggling discourses feel less frustrating.

chapter 7

Personal space expectations: conform or deviate?Judee Burgoon defines personal space as the invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that individual's preferred distance from others.The size and shape of our personal space depends upon cultural norms and individual preferences.Personal space is always a compromise between the conflicting approach-avoidance needs that we as humans have for affiliation and privacy.Edward Hall coined the term proxemics to refer to the study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture.He believed that most spatial interpretation is outside our awareness.He believed that Americans have four proxemic zones.Intimate distance: 0 to 18 inches.Personal distance: 18 inches to 4 feet.Social distance: 4 to 12 feet.Public distance: 12 to 25 feet to infinity.He maintained that effective communicators adjust their nonverbal behavior to conform to the communicative rules of their partners.Burgoon suggests that under some circumstances, violating social norms and personal expectations is a superior strategy to conformity. An applied test of the original model.According to Burgoon's early model, crossing over the "threat threshold" that forms the boundary of the intimate distance causes physical and psychological discomfort.Noticeable deviations from what we expect cause a heightened state of arousal and spur us to review the nature of our relationship with a person.A person with "punishing" power should observe proxemic conventions or stand slightly farther away than expected.An attractive communicator benefits from a close approach.Burgoon's original experiments failed to confirm her theory, but she has continued to refine her approach to expectancy violations.The current version is an excellent example of ideas continually revised as a result of empirical disconfirmation. A convoluted model becomes an elegant theory.Burgoon dropped the concept of the threat threshold.She has substituted "an orienting response" or a mental "alertness" for "arousal."Arousal is no longer a necessary link between expectancy violation and communication outcomes such as attraction, credibility, persuasion, and involvement, but rather a side effect of a partner's deviation.She has dropped the qualifier "nonverbal" because she believes the principles of EVT apply to verbal interaction as well. Core concepts of EVT (expectancy violations theory).EVT offers a soft determinism rather than hard-core universal laws.Burgoon does, however, hope to link surprising interpersonal behavior and attraction, credibility, influence, and involvement.Expectancy.Expectancy is what is predicted to occur rather than what is desired.Expectancy is based on context, relationship, and communicator characteristics.Burgoon believes that all cultures have a similar structure of expected communication behavior, but that the content of those expectations differs from culture to culture.Violation valence.The violation valence is the positive or negative value we place on the unexpected behavior, regardless of who does it.If the valence is negative, do less than expected.If the valence is positive, do more than expected.Although the meanings of most violations can be determined from context, some nonverbal expectancy violations are equivocal.For equivocal violations, one must refer to the communicator reward valence.Communicator reward valence.The communicator reward valence is the sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future.Puzzling violations force victims to search the social context for clues to their meaning and that's when communication reward valence comes into play.Burgoon says that all things being equal, the nature of the violation will influence the response it triggers more than the reward potential of the one who did it.Communicator reward valence may loom large when it's especially strong either way (exceptionally positive or negative). Interactional Adaptation—Adjusting Expectations.Burgoon has recognized that "EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity that has been found in interpersonal interactions."So she has reassessed EVT's single-sided view of unexpected communication and now favors a dyadic model of adaptation.Interactional adaptation theory is an extension and expansion of EVTInteractional position encompasses three factors:Requirements—outcomes we all need to fulfill our basic needs to survive, be safe, belong, and have sense of self worth.Expectations—what we think really will happen.Desire—what we personally would like to see happen.Unlike EVT, IAT addresses how people adjust their behavior when others violate their expectations. Critique: A well-regarded work in progress.While we might wish for predictions that prove more reliable than a long-range weather forecast, a review of expectancy violations research suggests that EVT may have reached that point and be more accurate than other theories that predict responses to nonverbal communication.Despite problems, Burgoon's theory meets five criteria for a good scientific theory (explanation, relative simplicity, testable, quantitative research, and practical advice) and recent research suggests improvement in the sixth criterion—prediction.

chapter 15

The central route and the peripheral routes to persuasion.Richard Petty and John Cacioppo posit two basic mental routes for attitude change.The central route involves message elaboration, defined as the extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication.The peripheral route processes the message without any active thinking about the attributes of the issue or the object of consideration.Recipients rely on a variety of cues to make quick decisions.Robert Cialdini has identified six such cues:ReciprocationConsistencySocial proofLikingAuthorityScarcityAlthough Petty and Cacioppo's model seems to suggest that the routes are mutually exclusive, the theorists stress the central route and the peripheral route are poles on a cognitive processing continuum that shows the degree of mental effort a person exerts when evaluating a message.The more listeners work to evaluate a message, the less they will be influenced by content-irrelevant factors; the greater the effect of content-irrelevant factors, the less impact the message carries. Motivation for elaboration: Is it worth the effort?People are motivated to hold correct attitudes.Yet the number of ideas a person can scrutinize is limited, so we tend to focus on issues that are personally relevant.Personally relevant issues are more likely to be processed on the central route; issues with little relevance take the peripheral route, where credibility and other content free cues take on greater importance).Certain individuals have a need for cognitive clarity, regardless of the issue; these people will work through many of the ideas and arguments they hear. Ability for elaboration: Can they do it?Elaboration requires intelligence and concentration.Distraction disrupts elaboration.Repetition may increase the possibility of elaboration, but too much repetition causes people to resort to the peripheral route. Type of elaboration: Objective vs. biased thinking.Biased elaboration (top-down thinking) occurs when predetermined conclusions color the supporting data underneath.Objective evaluation (bottom-up thinking) considers the facts on their own merit. Elaborated messages: Strong, weak, and neutral.Objective elaboration examines the perceived strength of an argument.Petty and Cacioppo have no absolute standard for differentiating between cogent and specious arguments.They define a strong message as one that generates favorable thoughts.Thoughtful consideration of strong arguments will produce positive shifts in attitude.The change is persistent over time.It resists counterpersuasion.It predicts future behavior.Thoughtful consideration of weak arguments can lead to negative boomerang effects paralleling the positive effects of strong arguments (but in the opposite direction).Mixed or neutral messages won't change attitudes and in fact reinforce original attitudes. Peripheral cues: An alternative route of influence.Most messages are processed through the peripheral route, bringing attitude changes without issue-relevant thinking.The most obvious cues for the peripheral route are tangible rewards.Source credibility is also important.The principal components of source credibility are likability and expertise.Source credibility is salient for those unmotivated or unable to elaborate.Peripheral route change can be either positive or negative, but it won't have the impact of message elaboration. Pushing the limits of peripheral power.Penner and Fritzshe's study of Magic Johnson's HIV announcement suggests that the effect of even powerful peripheral cues is short-lived.Although most ELM research has measured the effects of peripheral cues by studying credibility, a speaker's competence or character could also be a stimulus to effortful message elaboration.Petty and Cacioppo emphasize that it's impossible to compile a list of cues that are strictly peripheral.Lee and Koo argue that there are times when source credibility is processed through the central route rather than functioning as a peripheral cue.This is particularly true when there's a close match between an advertised product that consumers really care about and the expertise of the star presenter.Many variables like perceived credibility or the mood of the listener can act as peripheral cues. Yet if one of them motivates listeners to scrutinize the message or affects their evaluation of arguments, it no longer serves as a no-brainer. Choosing a route: Practical advice for the persuader.If listeners are motivated and able to elaborate a message, rely on factual arguments—i.e., appeal through the central route.When listeners are willing and able to elaborate a message, avoid using weak arguments; they will backfire.If listeners are unable or unwilling to elaborate a message, rely on packaging rather than content; appeal by using cues be processed on the peripheral route.When using the peripheral route, however, the effects will probably be fragile. Ethical reflection: Nilsen's significant choice.Nilsen proposes that persuasive speech is ethical to the extent that it maximizes people's ability to exercise free choice.Philosophers and rhetoricians have compared persuasion to a lover making fervent appeals to his beloved—wooing an audience, for example.For Nilsen, true love can't be coerced; it must be freely given.Nilsen would regard persuasive appeals that encourage message elaboration through ELM's central route as ethical Critique: Elaborating the model.ELM has been a leading theory of persuasion and attitude change for the last twenty-five years, and Petty and Cacioppo's initial model has been very influential.These theorists have elaborated ELM to make it more complex, less predictive, and less practical, which makes it problematic as a scientific theory.As Paul Mongeau and James Stiff have charged, the theory cannot be adequately tested and falsified, particularly in terms of what makes a strong or weak argument.Despite these limitations, the theory synthesizes many diverse aspects of persuasion.

chapter 14

Three latitudes: Acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment.Social judgment theory says that at the instant of perception, people compare messages to their present point of view.Individuals' opinions are not adequately represented as a point along a continuum because degrees of tolerance around their positions must also be considered.Muzafer Sherif established three zones of attitudes.The latitude of acceptance represents ideas that are reasonable or worthy of consideration.The latitude of rejection includes items that are unreasonable or objectionable.The latitude of noncommitment represents ideas that are neither acceptable nor objectionable.A description of a person's attitude structure must include the location and width of each interrelated latitude.In order to craft a more persuasive message, social judgment theory recommends that a communicator try to figure out the location and breadth of the other person's three latitudes before further discussion. Ego-involvement: How much do you care?Ego-involvement refers to how central or important an issue is in our lives.The favored position anchors all other thoughts about the topic.People who hold extreme views care deeply. Judging the message: Contrast and assimilation errors.Social judgment-involvement describes the linkage between ego-involvement and perception.Contrast occurs when one perceives a message within the latitude of rejection as being more discrepant than it actually is from the anchor point. This perceptual distortion leads to polarization of ideas.Assimilation, the opposite of contrast, occurs when one perceives a message within the latitude of acceptance as being less discrepant than it actually is from the anchor point.Although Sherif is unclear as to how people judge messages that fall within the latitude of noncommitment, most interpreters believe the message will be perceived as intended. Discrepancy and attitude change.If individuals judge a new message to fall within their latitude of acceptance, they adjust their attitude to accommodate it.The persuasive effect will be positive but partial.The greater the discrepancy, the more individuals adjust their attitudes.The most persuasive message is the one that is most discrepant from the listener's position, yet still falls within his or her latitude of acceptance or latitude of noncommitment.If individuals judge a new message to be within their latitude of rejection, they will adjust their attitude away from it.For individuals with high ego-involvement and broad latitudes of rejection, most messages that are aimed to persuade them that fall within a latitude of rejection have an effect opposite of what the communicator intended.This boomerang effect suggests that individuals are often driven, rather than drawn, to the positions they occupy.Sherif's approach is quite automatic.He reduced interpersonal influence to the issue of the distance between the message and the hearer's position.Volition exists only in choosing the message the persuader presents. Practical advice for the persuader.For maximum influence, select a message right on the edge of the audience's latitude of acceptance or noncommitment.Ambiguous messages can sometimes serve better than clarity.Persuasion is a gradual process consisting of small movements.The most dramatic, widespread, and enduring attitude changes involve changes within reference groups where members have differing values. Attitudes on sleep, booze, and money: Evidence supporting SJT.Research on the predictions of social judgment theory requires highly ego-involved issues.A highly credible speaker can shrink the listener's latitude of rejection.Application of the theory raises ethical problems. Ethical Reflections: Kant's categorical imperative.Social judgment theory focuses on what is effective. But, before we adjust what we say so that it serves our ends and seems reasonable to others, we should consider what's ethical.German philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that any time we speak or act, we have a moral obligation to be truthful.He held an absolutist position, based on his categorical imperative, which is "act only on that maxim which you can will to become a universal law."There are no mitigating circumstances. Lying is wrong—always. So is breaking a promise.Kant would have us look at the difference between what we plan to say to influence others and what we truly believe.We should then ask, What if everybody did that all the time? If we don't like the answer, we have a solemn duty not to do the deed.The categorical imperative is a method for determining right from wrong by thinking through the ethical valence of an act, regardless of motive. Critique: A theory well within the latitude of acceptance.The theory has practical utility for persuaders.The theory offers specific predictions and explanations about what happens in the mind when a message falls within someone's latitude of acceptance or rejection.Like all cognitive explanations, social judgment theory assumes a mental structure and process that are beyond sensory observation.Although its falsifiable claims have not been widely tested, the empirical research has been conducting validates supports the SJT.Despite the small amount of research it's fostered, social judgment theory is an elegant, intuitively appealing approach to persuasion.