Cha cha cha 02/01/2010
 Photo from Wikipedia Before we get to the dancing part, let's ask this question first: Communication theorists as relationship mechanics? That’s the analogy Griffin uses to introduce theories on relationship maintenance. And while that may be true for some aspects of a relationship, Griffin says the idea of “servicing” may sound mechanical (156-57). So he cites John Stewart’s reference to a relationship as the “’spiritual child,’ born as the result of [individuals] coming together” (Griffin 157). The following posts detail two theories on relationship maintenance: Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics theory and Paul Watzlawick’s Interactional View. The above theories are just two examples that deal with relationship maintenance. Other theories, like Thibaut and Kelley’s Social Exchange Perspective, also provide some insights into how relationships are maintained and/or sustained. Baxter and Montgomery provide a list of 50 strategies that individuals usually employ to maintain and/or sustain their relationships (see Griffin 158-59). While Baxter and Montgomery drew up this list for marital relationships, these strategies can also be seen in other theories dealing with relationship maintenance. Now to the cha cha cha Or should it be tango criminal? That is how Relational Dialectics explains the “tug-of-war” in relationships. Let’s do an exercise to practice what we know of Baxter and Montgomery’s sensitizing theory. Read the following text below, then write either Jim or Shelley what they should do. Make Jim or Shelley understand what they’re going through, using Relational Dialectics to explain their situation. (Post your advice to Jim or Shelley as a comment here.) Here’s Jim and Shelley’s story (McGlish and Langan 141): "Shelley and Jim have been dating very seriously for about six months. From the beginning of the relationship, Jim has known that Shelley has kept a private diary that he has never shown anyone. At first, he wasn’t too interested in this activity, but as hey have drawn closer, he has become intrigued by her personal writings. Yet he never he asks if she would share her prose with him, she responds that she needs a secret place to work out her thoughts and emotions. In conversation, she never holds back from him, freely self-disclosing about herself and their relationship, but the diary remains all her own, and Jim is perplexed, even disturbed by this. The more interest he shows in her private writings, the more adamant about her privacy she becomes. What should they do?" 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.  Photo by Xiaphias Em Griffin likens interpersonal communication to games. He gives three game metaphors: bowling, pingpong, and charades. In bowling, Griffin tells us, the player is the Sender, the bowling ball is the Message, the lane is the Channel, bumps on the lane make up Noise, and the set of pins is the Receiver. When I asked my students to comment on this metaphor, they added the score as Feedback. In pingpong, Griffin says the players alternate as Sender and Receiver, the ball is the Message, the table the Channel, and the net is the Noise. In charades, Griffin says the players are both Senders and Receivers, the verbal and nonverbal symbols are the Messages, the Channel is the space separating the players, and the wrong guesses make up Noise. But Griffin adds that what differentiates charades from bowling and pingpong is in the exchange. Charades is more of a transaction than the one-way or two-way interaction in bowling or pingpong. Griffin then presents three communication theories that exhibit this transactional approach to interpersonal communication. These theories include Symbolic Interactionism, Coordinated Management of Meaning, and Expectancy Violations Theory.  Dada comics art manipulation by Crummy The philosopher George Herbert Mead proposed some ideas that his students, including Herbert Blumer who coined the term "Symbolic Interactionism," published posthumously under the title Mind, Self, Society (1934). Blumer based his Symbolic Interactionism theory on three (3) core principles gleaned from Mead (as quoted from Griffin 56-58):
The self, according to Mead and echoed by Blumer, are portraits of ourselves made by “taking the role of the other” and by distinguishing the “I” from the “me” through talk/language. The "me" is also a product of the community, as the expectations of society that make up our mental image of a generalized other. Because meaning is usually a product of this dialogic minding between the individual and his/her community, Symbolic Interactionists proposed participant observation as an ethnomedological approach to research. Erving Goofman also proposed his concept of “framing” the self within the context of "social interaction as a dramaturgical performance." This "drama," according to his associate Joan Emerson, is what accounts for how doctors and nurses "frame" themselves as impersonal medical personnel attending to a gynecological examination. Because the doctors and nurses play these roles, the patient is put at ease (Griffin 62). Symbolic Interactionism also accounts for how "naming" becomes constitutive of identities, and how our individual expectations contribute to the "self-fulfilling" actions of others. However, Saul Alinsky provides a positive application of the theory in his concept of “symbol manipulation” as an emancipatory technique in community organizing. Symbolic Interactionism, according to Griffin, is often criticized for its "fluid boundaries" and "vague concepts" (for instance, the differences between the "I" and "me"), as well as for its "undisciplined approach" to analyzing communication phenomena. Also, Griffin points to the "overstatement on the human capacity for language" as rather biased against those with speech or mental impairment. However, these critiques aside, the principles of Symbolic Interactionism allowed other interpretive communication scholars to propose their own theories.  CMM whole model You might want to visit this site by Richard W. Dillman, called the Happy Fun Communication Land. It presents a very interesting explanation of W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen's Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM). Pearce and Cronen argue that “persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create” (Griffin 69). They look at individuals as social constructionists creating their narratives, their realities, “strange loops,” and dialogic communication. Pearce and Cronen present the following theoretical tenets undergirding CMM (Griffin 70-71):
CMM is usually critiqued for the following characteristics:
Please watch the video above, if you haven't yet. The video illustrates several concepts contained in Judee Burgoon’s nonverbal expectancy violations model. Burgoon initially worked on her theory using the concept of “personal space,” first popularized by Edward Hall. Hall also coined the term proxemics – “study of people’s use of space as a special elaboration of culture” (Griffin 84). Hall proposed four (4) proxemic zones typical in American culture. These zones include the following (Griffin 85):
She abandoned the earlier premises based on “arousal” and “threat threshold,” and came up with three (3) core concepts of Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) (Griffin 88-92):
She then points to communicator reward valence as “the results of [the] mental audit of likely gains and losses” in the face of expectancy violations. Griffin cites several critiques against EVT (93-94):
Theorizing 11/23/2009
 from Em Griffin's A First Look That there is a graphical rendering of communication theories throughout history. The metaphorical river comes from an earlier edition of Em Griffin's A First Look at Communication Theory book (now on it's 7th edition). But I'll let you navigate down that river yourself. You can cruise down the river with Griffin's book (or you can use Littlejohn's or West & Turner's or Wood's). Rather, we'll take a look at how these theories came to be. Communication theories really arise from our attempt to define specific communication acts. These definitions of communication are usually situated in a context. These contexts usually limit the scope or depth of applicability of our definition. These contexts include:
Along the way, we also describe communication acts. What we include in our theories usually reveals our assumptions about communication. These assumptions may be:
Our theories about communication may be evaluated by objective standards. These objective standards include:
There are several types of communication theories, namely:
Communication is 11/12/2009
 Trying out different definitions How do we define communication? Em Griffin, in an earlier edition (3rd ed., 1997) of his book A First Look at Communication Theory, first provides us Claude Shannon’s definition: “Communication is the transmission and reception of information.” Then he gives us I. A. Richards’s definition: “Communication is the generation of meaning.” According to Griffin, while not contradictory, the two definitions seem to point us to two different things. One looks at communication through scientific lenses while the other looks at the same from a humanistic viewpoint. Then he furnishes us a definition, which he favors as it doesn’t lean toward one or the other perspective, formulated by Lawrence Frey, Carl Botan, Paul Friedman, and Gary Kreps: “Communication is the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning” (19). Stephen Littlejohn likewise points to several definitions of communication, particularly Frank Dance and Carl Larson’s 1976 listing of 126 definitions. Littlejohn concludes that coming up with a single and absolute definition of communication may be an impossible task. He, however, also mentions Dance’s attempt to narrow down these varied definitions by categorizing 15 conceptual concepts common in all. These include:
 'Hide and seek' by Jean Claire Dy Because you have to? Seriously though, as Communication Arts students, you need to know not only how to communicate but also how acts of communication work. That knowledge is what makes you an artist of communication. That knowledge will be what you'll find most invaluable when you, for example:
Theories of communication are "maps of reality," according to Em Griffin, that will help you find your way in the communication maze. And believe me, you will soon find out that all acts of communication are labyrinthine. Griffin presents a metaphor for the different theories of communication as a river flowing from the mountains to the sea. (Go to the A First Look website, then click on the "Theory Archives," scroll down the table to "Talk About Communication," and click on the PDF version [marked 1254 kb] of the file.) These theories are what you'll read more on as we cruise down the river (but not necessarily in chronological flow). Enjoy the ride. (You'll soon note that I rely on Griffin's textbook for this blog, mainly because of how he introduces communication theories to first-year or second-year students.) | 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
ArchivesFebruary 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