You have mail 01/19/2010
 Have you seen that movie that stars Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan? The characters Hanks and Ryan play have a growing romantic relationship online. They haven’t met each other offline — or so they think — and yet they find comfort in each other’s words. What they don’t know, but which provides the thrill for the audience, is that they are antagonists fighting over the bookshop that Ryan owns and Hanks wants to buy out. How they eventually get together, and how couples who meet online eventually marry (like so many Filipino women who met their spouses in chatrooms), is explained by Social Information Processing theory. Several years ago, such relationships were looked at with suspicion. After all, how sincere are the words coming from a person you haven’t even met except through the Internet? Social Presence theory suggests that when you communicate with someone who isn’t really there, like in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), the exchange can become “more impersonal, individualistic, and task-oriented” (Griffin 142). Relationships are believed best developed when there is “a rich mix of verbal and nonverbal cue systems,” as explained by Media Richness theory, and not through “the limited bandwidth of CMC” (Griffin 142). Still another theory explaining how CMC may hinder relationship development is Social Context Cues, where flaming or the use of hostile language may occur because online users may not be aware of interactional norms or rules. However, Joseph B. Walther’s Social Information Processing (SIP) theory proposes that CMC may just be as effective in developing interpersonal relationships as face-to-face communication. Walther says that relationships develop through CMC as the two individuals involved gain interpersonal information that becomes the basis for impression formation of each other. The success of relationships developed through CMC is due to the extended time that this kind of communication entails. Impression formation occurs over a long period; that is, one’s interpersonal information about another is by sips and not by gulps. The rate of information that accumulates over an extended period of interaction — done at the individuals’ own pace, without the pressure of immediately forming impressions that characterize face-to-face communication — allows for a more pleasant exchange. Moreover, the extended period also provides the individuals in CMC situations to carefully compose their linguistic cues. The careful and thoughtful structuring of written messages — getting the right tone, choosing the right words, drafting and revising of texts — also compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC. Messages individuals exchange with one another “actually surpasses the quality of relational communication that’s available when parties talk face-to-face” (Griffin 148). While messages conveyed in face-to-face communication are affected by nonverbal cues, the content and quality of verbal cues are not affected by such interventions. Walther presents four media effects of this kind of hyperpersonal relationships. One is the selective self-presentation individuals can sustain through CMC to gain positive impressions from others. Another is identification with the other person through overattribution of similarity. Individuals in CMC situations assume, for lack of other cues, that the persons they meet through a particular online group or site share the same interests (otherwise they wouldn’t have logged on to that group or site). Still another media effect is asynchronous interaction, where individuals involved in CMC can choose to communicate with each other on their own time — allowing for the reading and writing of messages during more relaxed conditions. And one more media effect is self-fulfilling prophecy, with the individuals involved in CMC making things happen because they believe it will happen: Senders self-select what they reveal, receivers create an idealized image of their partner, and the channel lets users express themselves the way they want, when they want. What’s not to like? ¶ Self-fulfilling prophecy is triggered when that hyperpositive image is intentionally or inadvertently fed back to the other, creating the CMC equivalent of the looking-glass self … [and the] person perceived to be wonderful starts acting that way. (Griffin 152) So you still wonder why online romance is really possible? I wonder, though, what Walther will say about the use of webcams. Sniffing each other 01/12/2010
 Two dogs sniffing each other If we were dogs, we would be sniffing a new canine acquaintance. But since we don't have that skill, we try to reduce uncertainties that beset the beginnings of new relationships. Here is where Charles Berger's Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) comes in handy. The theory focuses on how communication helps us reduce uncertainties. Berger says the need to reduce uncertainties becomes more apparent (1) whenever there is the possibility of future interaction with the other person, (2) whenever the other person has something we want, and (3) whenever the other person piques our curiosity because s/he acts differently. Berger agrees with Fritz Heider's Attribution Theory, giving explanations for and predicting other people's behavior. As our ability to explain people's behavior increases, our ability to predict what they will do next also increases. And when we our ability to predict increases, our uncertainty about other people decreases. And vice versa. Of course, we don't want uncertainty, particularly in interpersonal relationships. It becomes natural for us to reduce any uncertainty about other people. There are two kinds of uncertainties: behavioral (what should I do, how should I act) and cognitive (what is the other person like). URT focuses on reducing these cognitive uncertainties. Berger looks at eight variables or axioms (originally seven, the eigth was added later on) of relationship development:
Berger, according to Griffin, says we can predict outcomes based on relationships (negative/positive) between axiom variables. For example: If an increase in communication (A) causes lower uncertainty (B), and perceived similarities (C) cause lower uncertainty (B), then (A) must be positively related to (C). Berger believes that "most social interaction is goal-driven" (Griffin 135). In other words, we make plans on how to achieve our set goals. Our plans are "'hierarchically organized with abstract action representations at the top of the hierarchy and progressively more concrete representation toward the bottom'" (Berger, as quoted in Griffin 136). Berger then combines concepts in URT with plan-based message production, and outlines several strategies people use to avoid embarrassing situations:
Berger's URT, however, has faced some rather damaging critiques, particularly in reference to Theorem 17. It seems that there is more of a need to seek information about a person that you like, and some scholars have gathered empirical data to support this contention. Nevertheless, Berger's theory remains a breakthrough in its focus on reducing uncertainty through the production of communicati Getting closer through self-disclosure 01/04/2010
 Bonfire flames FLAMES. You know what that means, right? You may have played that game with friends. You write down the names of two friends, that of a boy and a girl; then you cross out the letters that appears in both names, and count the letters left uncrossed. You then get the total and… Our relationships, however, are not easily defined by such a game. There is some truth in the idea, though, that compatability (not necessarily determined by how our names are spelled) contributes to how we develop close and/or intimate relationships with other people. Relationship development theories follow either of the following two approaches to explain how close relationships are developed. One approach is the phenomenological approach, which focuses on the “self-disclosures” of participating individuals, their “nonverbal warmth” (or lack of it), their “empathic listening” and “trust” as they draw close to others. The other approach, from a somewhat economic perspective, looks at relationships as these are determined by the ”rewards and costs of interaction,” with the assumption that “people interact with others in a way that maximizes their personal benefits and minimizes their personal costs” (Griffin 115-16). How do you approach your relationships with your family, your friends, your romantic partners? Perhaps your relationship with them is also affected by your attachment style. What is your attachment style: secure, dismissing, preoccupied, fearful? Let’s think about that as we learn more about different ways of developing relationships…  Paul Cezanne How to peel an onion and win the love of friends Why onions? Because that’s how social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor look at the personality structure of individuals. Altman and Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory posits that people develop close relationships with others through a “peeling” of layers “in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes” (Griffin 119). Altman and Taylor say that individuals slowly peel their outer layers (public selves) to reveal parts of their inner core (private domains) through a process of self-disclosure. If you have tried slicing onions, you’d know that the outer layer and the core are the tougher parts to cut through. Developing close relationships through self-disclosure is like that, too. Initiating a friendship may sometimes be as hard as forging close ties with another. The degree of closeness will depend on the depth and breadth of reciprocal self-disclosure. Altman and Taylor points to four observations about the social penetration process (Griffin 121):
But once there’s a connection, how will the friendship prosper? John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, proponents of Social Exchange Theory, say that relationship development will depend on the rewards and costs of going into the friendship. Thibaut and Kelley propose that when “perceived mutual benefits outweigh the costs of greater vulnerability, the process of social penetration will proceed.” They “suggest that people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place” (Griffin 122-23). This “economic” theory makes use of “the minimax principle … [that] claims that people seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs” (Griffin 123). Individuals weigh the benefits-minus-costs that potential friendship will yield, and they decide whether to continue or to distance themselves from such connections. They base their decisions partly on their CL (Comparison Level) — “the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive.” That is, the possible relational satisfaction such a connection may possibly provide — as guaged by the value they place on it in comparison to their relational history. They also use as basis their CLalt (Comparison Level of Alternatives) — “the best relational outcomes available outside the current relationship.” The latter is often used to explain why people sometimes stay in abusive relationships: for example, some women endure abuse because Outcome > CLalt (in other words, women stay with their abusive partners because they don’t see any rewarding alternative outside their current relationships). When individuals rate a possible connection as Outcome > CLalt > CL, they will be open to optimal disclosures (Griffin 124-25). Of course, Altman and Taylor’s theory may seem too pat for others. Altman actually had second thoughts about an individual’s openness. He later on speculated that an individual’s need for privacy may dialectically impact on the need for intimacy. Sandra Petronio’s Privacy Management Theory extends Altman’s second thoughts, and along the way dismantles some of the assumptions behind Social Penetration Theory. Petronio’s theory points to how the need for privacy is managed by setting up “privacy boundaries” and by negotiating “relational turbulence” resulting from different boundary rules. Some factors determining boundary rules include: culture, gender, motives, context, and risk-benefit ratio. Boundary coordination between individuals happens when there is shared understanding of boundary linkage, boundary ownership, and boundary permeability. Relational turbulence occurs when there is no coordination of boundary rules and management. Along the way, Petronio questions Altman and Taylor’s onion metaphor to illustrate their concept of personality structure. According to Petronio, “boundaries are personally created, often shifting, and frequently permeable” (Griffin 127). Not an onion at all. | COMA 101Communication Arts 101 (COMA 101) or "Introduction to Communication Theories" involves the study of principles, concepts, and theories of language and communication. It emphasizes the learning, analysis, and applications of communication models/paradigms and theories to communication acts or phenomena. Course Materials
ArchivesMarch 2010 CategoriesAll LinksLogsAlerts  COMA 101 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License. My TwitterMy Flickr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed