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.