Muted Groups

Muted groups are groups of people that belong to a low power group who change their language when they communicate publicly, which often results in their ideas being ignored or overlooked (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  A muted group (as described by the textbook) is primarily women, but I believe a strong argument can be made that African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups can be muted groups as well.  I believe many of their struggles can coincide along with the struggles of women.  Just yesterday, I saw a post on Facebook that was circulating through various social media platforms.  The post was about about a store attendant helping a Pakistani customer.  The Pakistani customer did not speak English very well and she told the store attendant that she was visiting the U.S., and she stated, "I'm Pakistani but I'm not a terrorist I promise."  The fact that even though she didn't speak English very well but she knew how to say this phrase shows how the American language and culture oppresses foreigners, especially from the Middle East.  This woman also tried to adjust her language to the American language, as well as in a way apologizing for her culture and thinking that every American would think of her as being a possible terrorist.  This is also a prime example of the co-cultural theory.  The muted group (Pakistanis/Middle Eastern origins) trying to adjust their communication to the dominant group (Americans).  Ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans began to take on the "us versus them" against Middle Eastern people, thereby classifying them as a muted group.

Regarding campus male dominance, I think the example I gave in class this past Wednesday works well for male domination on campus.  Catcalling is a huge part of the male college culture; I think most girls can agree that they have experienced some instance during their time at Fredonia, especially around FredFest time.  I remember last year, my friends and I were on our way downtown when we passed a group of guys sitting outside on their porch drinking.  As we walked past, they whistled at us and made comments about how we looked "fine" and "good" that night.  To most girls, this attention can be classified as harmless and sometimes as being flattering.  But to me and many others, it's very uncomfortable and makes me feel powerless.  I will usually try to respond back with something like, "do you talk to your mother or sister like that?" or just ignore the comments, but I also feel like there could be a chance that if I offend them I could be verbally or physically attacked for not accepting the "compliment."  The catcalling culture is just wrong and even in how far we've come in women's rights and equality, I still think the catcalling culture is still a strong one in terms of male dominated language that is still upheld, especially on college campuses.

                                                                                                                       

References


Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory(9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

pictures from https://www.google.com/search?q=catcalling+memes&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip1dD_1bHMAhVLNT4KHXg0B_MQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=R2Nm9n1nyAaV9M%3A

Face Negotiation Theory and Conflict

I have a friend that I used to be really close with but lately she and I haven't been as close and I would even say that we have been drifting apart.  It's been really hard to deal with because of my personality style; I am a people-pleaser, so I care a lot about what people think of me and the actions that I take that effect other people.  In terms of this theory, I care a lot about my own "facework."  I also think that I do a lot of "face-giving" as well, which is caring about another's person's need for inclusion (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  

The conflict with my friend has been constant since the beginning of the semester.  She had felt that I was becoming closer with our other friend and felt left out.  She confronted me about the difference in our friendship a few times during the Fall semester.  Now, I feel like everything I do I try to include her, but there are problems with that as well.  I personally think we have just changed a lot this year, and there's nothing really we can do about it.  But I still feel anxiety about the conflict so I usually try to avoid discussion about it.  This is one of the predictable styles of conflict management;  I also mostly oblige to my friend, because I don't like confrontation.  In terms of this theory, I think that these conflict management styles describe my situation pretty well.  I think the best route to take would be integrating (or problem-solving), but I think sometimes it's hard to achieve that.  Usually there is more going on that is pretty complicated, which makes it hard to actually talk everything out.  I think Ting-Toomey's management styles are pretty spot on to how a common conflict is usually dealt with.  

 References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory(9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Communication Accommodation Theory and Job Interviews

Based on the Communication Accommodation Theory, knowing how to accommodate your communication behavior for a job interview would be pretty important.  If you are in a job interview, you will probably want to converge your behavior with the interviewer.  Convergence is when you adopt your behavior to be like (similar to) the other person (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  You wouldn't want to over-accommodate however, because then the interviewer might feel like you are being fake, or even insulting them.  I think that can sometimes be a common mistake when people try to communicate with someone; when I talk to my grandmother, for example, I sometimes feel like I'm over-accommodating and people will notice, but I don't mean to because I am just trying to converge with her communication style so she understands.

In the context of a job interview, being able to converge is an important communication trait; for example, you would have to mirror the interviewer's professionalism and eye contact.  And in the off-chance (depending on the job you're applying for) that they are laid-back and conversational, you would have to be able to accommodate for the change, even if you weren't prepared for it.  I think the important thing to remember for job interviews is to stay professional and definitely adjust to the person's communication style.  I had a phone interview about 2 weeks ago, and I had a little trouble gauging a good convergence with the woman that was interviewing me.  I think talking on the phone is hard because it's not a face-to-face interaction, but I notice now that I was mirroring her speech pattern and tone; which was concise and professional.  I felt good after the conversation and my roommate had heard me talking on the phone and she commented that I had sounded professional as well.  I, obviously, don't always sound like that; you have to adjust your communication to each different situation.

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory(9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Correlation between the real world and "television answers"

I think there is a strong correlation between hours spent in front of the television and the tendency to believe that what is portrayed is reality.  The more television the person consumes, the more likely they will probably be to think that it is real.  I believe everything shown on television is portrayed in a way that is very believable to any person.  A person that consumes this type of media would have to be very critical of everything they were watching, which most often isn't going to happen.  For example, this theory makes sense to me because I believe a lot of young girls sex role attitudes come from television consumption.  Many young girls and teenagers think that relationships or their role in sex should and will be just like what they saw on television.  Then when this doesn't happen, I think a lot of girls don't think they did something right because roles weren't the same as the ones they saw on TV.  The more a young girl consumes this type of message, the more likely she will believe it to be true, thereby fantasizing a role that can never really be obtained.

In terms of the effects of media on myself, I'm definitely gullible in terms of TV being reality.  I started watching "House" this summer and became obsessed with the show.  After about a week and 10 episodes in, I started to think that I might have some of the diseases that were diagnosed on the show.  Obviously, most of the cases that House works with are extremely rare, but the idea still stuck with me that I might be that one in a million case that would have this totally abnormal disease.  I had to stop watching the show because it became a little too real for me; which is ridiculous because it's totally not real, but I still had the idea stuck in my head that it was.  It probably also didn't help that I'm kind of a hypochondriac, so I probably shouldn't have started the show in the first place.  But I see where people can find TV reality to be true to the real world.  We definitely have this idea in our heads that if it's on TV, it must be real, but most often times it's not accurate at all.  

References:

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=house&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijhJ2k4fjLAhWDwxQKHW_XBn8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=House+tv+show&imgrc=dYoPd49ksWVF_M%3A

Development of Parasocial Relationships

When I read Chapter 28 and came across parasocial relationships, I was surprised that the idea actually had a name.  I think parasocial relationships are really common in our age of media.  The example of the death of Glee star Cory Monteith, is a great example cited by Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks (2015).  People started following Monteith on Twitter after his death, which was interpreted as a "way of expressing deep parasocial involvement with Monteith" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 359).  People were saddened by Monteith's death because of their attachment to Monteith's character, Quinn, on Glee.

Parasocial relationships develop when audiences feel personally attached to a celebrity.  I think if a celebrity or character has a lot in common or connects with an audience, this will lead to a parasocial relationship.  In my own case, I have a celebrity crush on Kristen Bell.  I first started to feel attached to her since her appearance in Veronica Mars, a TV series that aired many years ago.  The show is about a teenager, Veronica Mars (Bell), who's father is a private investigator.  Veronica's best friend is murdered mysteriously and she tries her best to find out who killed her friend.  The show centers on Veronica who is a self-confident, smart, outsider in her school and uses her dad's private investigator skills to solve cases throughout the 3 seasons of when the show was aired.  The show ends after Veronica is in her sophomore year of college, which left a lot of Veronica Mars' fans unsatisfied (including myself).  A few years after the show had ended, a fan began a start up project to make a movie centering on Veronica Mars after college with Kristen Bell.  Bell loved the idea and got the idea out there that if a movie was to be made, they would need money.  Within days of the idea coming into the public eye, Veronica Mars' fans had raised over 3 million within a week for the movie.  Bell is one of my favorite actresses and so many people loved her in Veronica Mars.  People were so emotionally attached to Veronica that after the show ended, fans wanted more and they made that happen.  This is definitely an example of a parasocial relationship, resulting in fans' overwhelming support to make a movie of a beloved TV series and an admirable character.

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=veronica+mars&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfmfPsn-7LAhUIHpAKHVG9DwoQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=5TtVgWxCZWC4mM%3A

Culture through unbiased eyes

Culture is unique to each individual, even those that live in the same one; everyone has a different interpretation as well as different rituals within that culture.  Take the United States; one could say that the U.S. has an American culture, but within that culture people practice very different rituals.  A person from Utah looks at life differently than someone that lives in New York.  If these two people were to meet, many of their cultural interpretations would probably differ.  For example, their views on abortion could be opposites; one person agrees that abortion should be illegal, while the other disagrees.  But who is right?  And that is the ultimate question that no one can agree upon.  Is there a way to see issues from an unbiased standpoint?

I don't believe there is a way to see through unbiased eyes; I don't believe that culture can be factored out--it will always be an influence.  For example for myself, I do my best to see both sides of the big issues in society today.  But even if I believe I am being unbiased, how do I truly know?  Many of my viewpoints were influenced by my parents and I share similar viewpoints with them today.  That is not to say that I agree with all of them; I have some that differ from my dad's.  In mass media today, I believe that most of the news is biased in some form; even the outlets that try to be unbiased.  Messages are most likely framed in some form or another.  It just isn't possible; cultural influences cannot be escaped.




References

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=biased+media&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-f7D0OTLAhXJax4KHd5UCc4Q_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=unbiased+media&imgrc=RS4imRSX0SqjCM%3A

Hegemony in Mass Communication

Hegemony in terms of mass media can be defined as the "subtle sway of society's haves over its have-nots" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  Looking at this definition only, I couldn't decipher exactly what it meant; the term hegemony for me has a historical definition.  I have a minor in History and hegemony came up frequently in many of my history courses.  Hegemony to me is when a nation or government is dominant over another, or over its people.  People under the dominance are aware of their oppression/domination by government or nation, but do nothing to actually create equality or change their status; they continue the status quo.

This definition helped me understand what hegemony meant in terms of mass communication.  Hall describes the relationship as being a "production of consent" rather than a "reflection of consensus" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  I take this to mean that mass media is not a reflection of everyone in society's opinions, only those who hold power in the media.  This makes sense, because the mass media we consume comes from corporations or Washington and information is circulated down to the public.  Consent comes from the public accepting the ideas distributed by the mass media--sometimes because it is in alignment with the public's interests or that do it without consciously knowing that they do.  Hegemony is also described as being particularly influential and present in keeping the power unequal--"maintaining worker unrest at the level of moaning and groaning rather than escalating into revolutionary fervor" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 341).  This description is familiar to my understanding of hegemony--people are aware of the power of the media and they may complain (moaning and groaning) but they do nothing to change it and they accept mass communication messages anyway.  This continues the cycle of mass media being circulated by people who have power and those that have not.  




References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from https://www.google.com/search?q=hegemony+in+mass+media&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWzsGDy-TLAhVD9x4KHU50ARQQ_AUICCgD#tbm=isch&q=hegemony&imgrc=s8bwW4WAh1VASM%3A

Semiotics

We see and interpret signs every day, and these signs mean something different to each individual person.  Most signs can be interpreted mutually and generally draw the same conclusions, but sometimes this isn't the case and that is why I don't think that signs are stable or objective in their meanings.  Semiotics can be defined as the "study of social production of meaning from sign systems; the analysis of anything that can stand for something else" (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 327).  Anything that can stand for something else means that there can be multiple meanings, which wouldn't make a sign the same to every person and therefore not stable.  

For example, a sign in one culture can have a different meaning in another culture.  Even within the same culture, signs have different meanings to different people.  Take Beyonce's performance at the Superbowl--Beyonce performed her new song, "Formation," during the Superbowl half-time show.  Controversy surrounded the performance as well as the music video released the day before after the fact about the different interpretations of these performances.  Many believed that her performance was in support of the "Black Lives Matter" movement as well as her costume representative of the Black Panthers.  In an article by Brasted on Beyonce's music video released the day before the Superbowl, different media networks interpreted what her performance and music video meant to them.  A columnist writer for NPR wrote that Beyonce's performance was "glorifying her bama blackness" while Wortham from The New York Times stated "It's also not insignificant that she's electing to parade her substantial wealth and ability to outearn most men in the music industry (including her husband, Jay Z) during the Super Bowl — the flagship event of male virility and violence in this country. That's incredibly meaningful. It's a moment where the entire country will be watching, and forced to sit up and pay attention" (Brasted, The Times-Picayune).  Others believe Beyonce's song is a protest against the police which has caused some protests and boycotts mentioned in the article; everyone has an opinion and a different interpretation.  But the point being that Beyonce's song means something different to to everyone that interprets the message she was trying to convey.

References

Brasted, C. (n.d.). Beyonce Super Bowl halftime show leads to protests, boycotts, conversations. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/2016/02/beyonce_boycott_racist_protest.html

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory(9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from: https://www.google.com/search?q=beyonce+formation&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjou-PumbzLAhUMWh4KHTV7D4EQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Qgi0cM5l-LvBpM%3A

Media Ecology: Loss or gain?

Media and technology have changed my life in ways that I think most of us don't really notice.  We grew up in this age where there were cellphones, supercomputers, and the start of new Apple technology, but I find it interesting to think as far back as when my parents were children.  It's so strange to think that in the 1960's and 1970's, technology and the world was radically different.  Now that this question has been brought to me, it's funny to think about how my parents reacted to these new technologies as they grew up which were radically different from the technology that they were used to.

In terms of what I think I have lost and gained by technological advances, I think there is a balance of both.  I think a lot about how when I was younger, I didn't have a cell phone until I was a senior in high school.  Today, there are 2nd graders with iPhones.  In some ways, I think this is a loss for their generation; kids don't experience the same outdoor experiences and ways to use their imaginations as much as I did when I was a little kid.  I used to build intricate towns for my toys with a school, houses and everything that went along with the houses that would expand from my room to my brother's room to the living room.  Today, I think kids sometimes miss out of the hands-on experiences and building and imagining with what they have to work with in favor of a game on their mom's phone.  Obviously, most kids still play with toys but a lot are just given a tablet or iPad to play with and told to sit quietly on the couch.  Playing with toys was also social; I had a bunch of friends over all the time to play with and to help me build my towns.  Kids today have friends over, but they connect through an online game.  I just don't think it's the same anymore and I personally think that it is a disadvantage of technology.

I think this loss is pretty important, but technology does have it's advantages.  I've been able to connect with friends I knew when I was younger through Facebook that live in different states and that I don't see anymore.  Before, I would see them one a year when our parents went camping together.  As we got older, we each had our different activities and busy lives, so we saw less of each other each year.  Recently, I was able to friend them on Facebook and direct message with them and catch up.  While social media does have an unsocial aspect of being plugged in from the outside world and physical interactions, being able to connect with people all over the world instantaneously offers a lot of cultural benefits and social situations.  It's a great way to stay connected with people.

References

picture from: https://www.google.com/search?q=slow+children+texting+meme&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS554US554&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=623&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs4_e-mrzLAhWBHR4KHZeiBxAQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Gd1M9HocBdQr4M%3A

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

                Festinger’s minimal justification hypothesis states that to change an attitude, just enough reward has to be offered to change a behavior (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  Festinger believes that a behavior and attitude have a cause and effect relationship, and it is more beneficial to change behavior first to change an attitude. 

                If you are trying to convince someone to do something, Festinger says it is more beneficial to change the behavior first through minimal reward to change an attitude.  Offer too much reward to change an attitude and the person will only change their behavior, not so much the actual attitude.  For example, with the political debates and environment being so high strung in the past few weeks, a lot of controversy was surrounding Bernie Sanders’ accepting donations.  Say a donor wanted Bernie to take money to change a political stance to the public.  Bernie could take this bribe to change his behavior by promoting a new stance in his campaign, but if the bribe is generous, it probably won’t change his attitude of his current platforms and he may feel guilty about accepting the bribe, creating dissonance.  This is shown through the “Would I lie for a dollar?” experiment cited in the chapter; a counter-attitudinal advocacy, or trying to get others to accept a belief that the advocator himself doesn’t even agree with (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  If an influencer can get a behavior to change to cause an attitude shift, this is a better and stronger way of persuasion which will decrease the amount of cognitive dissonance present in the decision. 

References 

 Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Petty and Cacioppo describe a trade-off between the central processing and peripheral processing routes of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015.  What they mean is that if someone is processing a persuasive message centrally, they will not likely be relying on peripheral cues.  But if peripheral cues are strong in a message, a person will likely not be thinking too deeply about the message or take it seriously.  I will provide an example of this from my public speaking class. 

                In my public speaking class my sophomore year, part of our speaking assignments was trying to sell a random item from a box provided by the professor extemporaneously.  My sophomore year, I was terrified of being in a public speaking class; I could public speak in other classes with preparation but being in a class that solely focused on public speaking and doing speeches without preparation was a huge challenge for me.  One of our assignments, as said, was trying to persuade the class to buy an item from a box.  We didn’t know the item until we were in front of the class—mine was a skateboard.  I struggled through my speech trying to sell a skateboard to my classmates, relying on a college student perspective: faster transportation to class than walking, cheap, durable, customize with Justin Bieber’s face on the front… It wasn’t that great of a speech.  Obviously the class wasn’t actually going to buy the skateboard because it was a class activity but if they were they definitely would not have bought it from me.  My classmates used their peripheral route to process my speech; they could all tell I was nervous and fidgety and I didn’t have the best examples.  They laughed at my Justin Bieber joke, but they weren’t about to go out and buy a skateboard.  My speech didn’t have a chance of persuading my peers because I did not engage them in a central processing route.  My other classmates did a great job of selling their items and could have had a potential in selling an item had it been outside of class and different circumstances, but it was safe to say I definitely couldn’t.  My persuasive message got as far as the peripheral route.

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from: https://www.google.com/?espv=2#tbm=isch&q=justin+bieber+skateboard+deck&imgrc=LZNS2c6DQYDxSM%3A

Social Judgement Theory

While this is no life altering event or change of mind, the situation I am about to explain is a situation that everyone can probably relate to.  When I first came to college, I was very against drinking alcohol.  I was always taught in high school that alcohol made you stupid and that you just shouldn’t even consume it.  My mom has about one to two glasses of wine a night and my dad doesn’t drink at all—coming into college I had my priorities set straight about the parties I would attend and my no-drinking policy.  Obviously as so many other college students come to realize, attitudes change.  Though I was very against drinking, I attended swim team parties with my friends where my teammates drank and were having a good time.  I didn’t have a high ego-involvement in this attitude because I saw that my friends were having fun and it wasn’t killing them (they were acting pretty stupid though).  Through assimilation my position on alcohol changed.  My friend told me, “You don’t have to go crazy drinking.  Just try it and drink in moderation.  It’s fun, you just have to be smart about it.”  This message was close to my latitude of acceptance and seemed very reasonable to me (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015). 

I think everyone can probably relate to this story—my brother is a senior in high school and felt the exact same way I did.  He did a visit at Cortland (the school he wants to attend) and stayed over- night with the swim team as a recruit.  I think his attitude about drinking has changed as well, which is very strange to think about.  I think it’s interesting how attitudes can change from one opposite of the spectrum to the other; my brother was totally adamant that he didn’t want to drink when he goes to college, but he now sees the contrast of the attitudes and has completely changed his attitude.

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from: https://www.ucribs.com/blog-post/15-tips-for-the-college-freshman/

CPM

           When private information is shared, collective privacy boundaries come into effect.  The co-owner of this private information has responsibilities to uphold to the other person regarding whether they are allowed to tell others or if the information must be kept to themselves.  This refers to boundary linkage, or when co-owners are able to agree to rules of who they can share the private information with (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015). 

For example, when one of my roommates tells me something in confidence, it can usually be assumed that I won’t tell anyone else.  Sometimes, she will ask me specifically to “not tell anyone” and this is establishes a very tight and secure boundary of rules when it comes to disclosing private information.  At other times, my roommate will tell me something and says “not to tell anyone” but that I can tell my other roommate.  In this case, this is known as boundary permeability, which is information that can be shared to a third party (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  The information that roommate 1 tells me can be told to roommate 2, which allows the information to flow through easily between the three of us. 

Between my roommates and myself, the rules of sharing private information with each other stays within the mapped boundaries that each of us adhere to.  However, fuzzy boundaries do sometimes occur.  Roommate 1 has a boyfriend that she shares everything with, including the private information that I share with her.  Most often this does not bother me, but at other times I don’t appreciate the boundary breach.  I’ve had to accept that either I don’t share information with her because I know it will be told to her boyfriend or I choose what information to share and which to withhold. 

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

picture from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwi0lLjGq47LAhXLbD4KHbQaAucQjxwIAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funniestmemes.com%2Ffunniest-memes-let-me-tells-u-a-secret%2F&bvm=bv.114733917,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNEJ8TCNZ7cHLqGM4DGcjK_V2RgWEw&ust=1456332471969612

Relational Dialectics

               Relational dialectics can be defined as “tension, struggles, and general messiness of close personal ties” (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 137).  Chapter 11 does a fine job of describing relational dialectics as a “tug-of-war” of sorts; we as humans, are always being pulled together and pushed apart in our relationships (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015). 

                I believe that gender and cultural aspects do play a part in relational dialectics.  For example, external dialectics involves the recurring tensions between a couple and their community (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  A gay couple in a small community in a state that still does not support gay marriage will feel a lot of cultural tension between themselves and the community they live in.  The gay couple has the right to marry and be together, but that is against the cultural norms of some people in the community.  Therefore the couple’s openness may be limited when they go out in public, maybe to avoid persecution or rude comments by their fellow community members.  It is unfair, but these may be some of the consequences that the gay couple might have to deal with.   They may try to conceal their romantic relationship or, on the other end of the spectrum, they may try to use their relationship as a revelation to the traditional community.  Perhaps this couple is the first gay couple that the community has encountered.  This couple could be creating change in the community by showing the community new cultural norms of romantic relationships in a progressive world.  The community may not take to it positively because it disrupts the stability and traditions of the community, but the couple will keep trying to ease tensions between themselves and the community.   

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Continuing with my roommate example from my last post, I used all the strategies in this chapter to reduce uncertainty between Jamie and myself when we first met.  To explain them, I will talk about the day she moved in to our dorm.  The day she moved in, her parents were there and as well as her sister.  I was more passive in this situation, because they were busy getting all of her things into our second floor dorm room.  I observed mostly how she interacted with her family and her sister.  Later that day, we had a swim team event where we met our fellow teammates for the first time.  I observed how she interacted with our new teammates that we didn’t know very well, and I could tell from my passive observation that she was very friendly and outgoing.  Later that day when we got back to our dorm room, we began interacting with each other, asking what classes the other was taking and things about home and what towns we were from. 

Before I actually met Jamie, I had asked about her at the recruit weekend that I had attended the previous spring with the swim team.  I had not had a roommate at that point and the upperclassmen were making suggestions about who I should room with who was also going to be a swimmer.  Jamie was suggested, so therefore I was also using the active strategy to reduce uncertainty by asking the upperclassmen's opinion of who would be best to room with.  Once I contacted Jamie about rooming together through email, we became Facebook friends and I looked into her profile and through her pictures to see what kind of person she was (extractive strategy).

To reduce uncertainty when I met Jamie for the first time and rooming with her, I used all of the strategies talked about in the textbook.  Because we were going to be rooming together, I think there was more motivation to get to know each other quickly, so that it wasn’t awkward.  We were also on the swim team together, so we would be spending a lot of time together at practices as well as living together.  Reducing uncertainty about the other person was definitely important in getting to know Jamie quickly to be comfortable with her.

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Social Penetration Theory

The Social Penetration theory is the “process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability” (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015, p. 97).  Altman and Taylor describe social penetration through an onion, made up of multiple layers. The outside layers are what people display to the world, or their physical appearance.  On the inside, are your values, self-concepts, and emotions (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  The chapter uses the example of two roommates so I will also use the example of when I first met my roommate, Jamie.  Like the roommates described in the chapter, we took a while to get to know each other.  It probably took two months before we began to enter a deeper friendship and begin sharing our values and secrets with each other.  According to Altman and Taylor and the depth of penetration, we began to share and disclose details to each other which initiated a close friendship.  Once friends begin to disclose these types of emotions and values, they can easily talk about their feelings with each other with little fear of being judged by the other person.  If they can maintain a stable relationship, these topics can easily be talked about between the two.  My friendship with Jamie was slow to come, but once we started to disclose, for example, our fears about being at school without our parents and being new to the college swim team and not feeling accepted by the upperclassmen, we became more comfortable with each other.

Once Jamie and I began to become closer, we didn’t need to guard our “deepest layer of the onion.”  Jamie knew my true feelings and she knew mine.  If we ever talked about something sensitive to the other person, we could usually get through it without being awkward.  We didn’t often have this problem, because we trusted each other and didn’t withdraw from one another when we were uncomfortable.  I’ve known other people that aren’t friends anymore because they said or did something that the other friend could not forgive.  This can be described through Altman and Taylor’s process of de-penetration.  This is when penetration is reversed and the friendship starts to deteriorate (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  One bad incident or situation can cause a friendship to end, but that seems to be rare and pretty extreme.  If a friendship is stable, social penetration was successful, like my friendship with my roommate. 

References

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Expectancy Violation Theory

           A violation of expectation can be both positive and negative.  Perhaps if you don’t like the violation, you would look like Eli Manning after his brother tied him for Super Bowl wins on Sunday:

           Eli Manning was seen looking unhappy as his brother’s team won the Super Bowl on Sunday.  The video and pictures have gone viral and while it’s funny to assume he is upset, he has stated that he was concentrating on the game.  The American public has made this picture of Eli viral because, simply, his reaction violated expectations.  One would expect that Eli would be happy for his brother, but he was not seen celebrating along with the rest of his family; his nonverbal communication did not match that of his family’s. 

But not all violations are negative, for example, the discussions provided by Dr. McGowan in class.  As I was leaving class, I realized that she had let us out twenty minutes earlier than usual.  We can expect Dr. McGowan to use all of class time on a typical class day, but yesterday class ended earlier.  As much as I enjoy time in class, it was definitely nice to get out of class twenty minutes early, so therefore it was a positive violation of my expectations.

Whether an expectation will be taken positively or negatively depends on the person and the situation.  I think the most important thing to do when an expectation is violated is to adjust quickly.  Then one can be prepared for any outcome, even if you weren’t ready for it.

References

Eli Manning -- I Can Explain My Super Bowl Face ... (VIDEO). (2016, February 8). Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/08/eli-manning-super-bowl-face-peyton-manning/

Communication Theory 1

Objective versus Interpretive theorists see theories quite differently from the other.  While an Objectivist values predictions, explanations of data, tests of hypotheses, and practical usage of a theory, an Interpretivist prefers clarification of values, understanding people and how they affect society, and interviews to discover the meaning behind theories (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015). 

                To put the above in perspective, one can look at the results of the Iowa Caucus that occurred this week.  Channel 10 ABC News reported candidate Cruz as the winner on the Republican side, with Clinton and Sanders in a close tie on the Democratic side with Clinton ahead by only one vote (Channel10 ABC News, 2016).  If one were to study the results of the election, they would be done from an Objectivist approach with a quantitative study.  After all, numbers are used to decide the results of the caucus; hard facts and numbers are the result.  Political experts hypothesized who would be the winner of the caucus long before the actual votes were in, attempting to predict future events.  While this is beneficial for the results of the win, if Americans wanted to know why these results occurred or voter sentiments in Iowa, an interpretive approach could be utilized.  Interviews could be conducted within a focus group of Republicans and Democrats in Iowa, to discover their reasons for voting for a particular candidate.  This is in the attempt to understand voter sentiment and perhaps see the whole picture and understand what voters in Iowa are looking for in political candidates.  

                There seems to be communication theories for everything; chapter four describes the different traditions that fall under objective versus interpretive theories of studying communication.  For example, the phenomenological tradition looks at a person’s experiences and tries to understand what they are experiencing (Griffin, Ledbetter & Sparks, 2015).  Phenomenology really looks at how a person perceives something and how they interpret it; this sounds like it could get complicated.  Everyone has a different way of perceiving and interpreting something, which makes studying people extremely complex.  Everyone will have their own unique ideas and understandings of the world, but that is the importance of understanding communication theories—their purpose is to gauge different understandings of a theory and how they relate or affect other theories, which makes up the field of communication study.

References

Stewart, A. (2016). What you need to know about Monday night's Iowa Caucuses. Retrieved February 02, 2016, from http://news10.com/2016/02/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-monday-nights-iowa-caucuses/

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.