There are minorities in a society. By that i mean, in a society, there a certain group of people which are silenced as they have have no much power to stand up and speak up. Cheris Kramarae 1981, further developed Muted Group theory from her feminist standpoint on how women are somewhat muted and are dominated by male's perception. Kramarae laid out 3 assumptions:
1) "Women perceive the world differently from men because of women’s and men’s different experience and activities rooted in the division of labor"
2) Male are the dominant group in society which will make female's point of view to be lest competent.
3) To be a part of the society and to dominate, female must act similar to those of the dominant groups, in terms of their perception towards thing.
Miller (2005) explains that muted group theory also posits that the dominant group in a culture (generally males) controls the various avenues of expression.
This theory does not only revolve on cross-gender situations. Muting of a certain group can be applied and seen to many cultural groups. Orbe (1995) stated that research performed by the dominant white European culture has created a view of African-American communication, how they are muted when it comes to being dominated by the white European society.
Example below:
(From the The Help, 2011 drama film adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's novel of the same name, adapted for the screen and directed by Tate Taylor)
The movie trailer above briefly show how at that time, Black women are dominated by White American women. It shows how this Black women are a muted group having to be overshadowed by all the White women. In the movie, Black women's perception towards things are greatly rejected by the White society. This shows how the different cultures are and how one is muted by the other, showing how they (White women) dominates in the society.
In conclusion, this theory helps us understand why there are different group domination in a society, and how the other is muted and are less competent. It also identifies how different individuals gain their voice in the different context, base on where their society is.
References:
Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orbe, M.P. (1995). African American communication research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 61-78.
Symbolic Interactionism
There's a reason why we act how we act. Symbolic interactionism basically is, as what Herbert Blumer has said, is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals.
Blumer created three core principle to his theory. Griffin 1997, showed that those three was the meaning: human react base on the meanings that are given to certain things and what that things are meant for them, language: negotiating meaning through symbols and thought or minding: the modification on people's interpretation towards symbols.
The video above (from the hit American sitcom comedy Friends by David Crane and Marta Kauffman), shows how Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) reacted when Joey (Matt Leblanc) seems to look as if he was about to propose.
This shows how Rachel interacted in a manner where she thought that Joey was proposing to her because we act toward people based on the meanings we assign to them. The meaning here to her was that Joey was proposing to her since he was down on one knee and holding out a ring. Joey in the other hand, was just looking at the ring which wasn't his. This leads to miscommunication between the two.
This also explain on how we have "shared meanings". That going down on one knee and holding out a ring means marriage proposal.
Mead, 1934, said that meaning can be describe, accounted for, or stated in terms of symbols or language. He sees the term "Me" and "I" as two different elements. "Me" was to him, is developed from the society perception towards oneself so one is able to function in society, while "I" is your own perception so you are able to function in the society.
It is similar to the continuation of the above video, how Joey's other friends, asked him to straighten things up with Rachel so she can know that it wasn't a proposal. This talks about the "Me" situation where his friends told him what to do so he is then able to function in their society. Griffin (2009, p. 65) states that 'generalized other' is "the composite mental image a person has of his or her self based on community expectations and responses.
In conclusion, symbolic interactionism helps in evaluating human interaction. It shows how certain thing can have different meanings to different individuals. It also shows how society can be a factor on how a person interacts, that he's decision can also be clouded by what people around him has influence him to do.
References:
Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
The Society for More Creative Speech. (1996). Symbolic Interactionism as Defined by Herbert Blumer. http://www.thepoint.net/-usul/text/blumer.html
Blumer created three core principle to his theory. Griffin 1997, showed that those three was the meaning: human react base on the meanings that are given to certain things and what that things are meant for them, language: negotiating meaning through symbols and thought or minding: the modification on people's interpretation towards symbols.
The video above (from the hit American sitcom comedy Friends by David Crane and Marta Kauffman), shows how Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) reacted when Joey (Matt Leblanc) seems to look as if he was about to propose.
This shows how Rachel interacted in a manner where she thought that Joey was proposing to her because we act toward people based on the meanings we assign to them. The meaning here to her was that Joey was proposing to her since he was down on one knee and holding out a ring. Joey in the other hand, was just looking at the ring which wasn't his. This leads to miscommunication between the two.
This also explain on how we have "shared meanings". That going down on one knee and holding out a ring means marriage proposal.
Mead, 1934, said that meaning can be describe, accounted for, or stated in terms of symbols or language. He sees the term "Me" and "I" as two different elements. "Me" was to him, is developed from the society perception towards oneself so one is able to function in society, while "I" is your own perception so you are able to function in the society.
It is similar to the continuation of the above video, how Joey's other friends, asked him to straighten things up with Rachel so she can know that it wasn't a proposal. This talks about the "Me" situation where his friends told him what to do so he is then able to function in their society. Griffin (2009, p. 65) states that 'generalized other' is "the composite mental image a person has of his or her self based on community expectations and responses.
In conclusion, symbolic interactionism helps in evaluating human interaction. It shows how certain thing can have different meanings to different individuals. It also shows how society can be a factor on how a person interacts, that he's decision can also be clouded by what people around him has influence him to do.
References:
Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
The Society for More Creative Speech. (1996). Symbolic Interactionism as Defined by Herbert Blumer. http://www.thepoint.net/-usul/text/blumer.html
Agenda Setting
News. It's our everyday main mediated go-to's. It updates us on the world's current issue and it eventually is our source toward the world's current happenings. How does this news plays a part in our lives? How does it affects our perspectives on determining choices and then directs our focus attentions towards an issue?
According to Dearing and Rogers, 1996, the agenda setting process is an ongoing competition among issue proponents to gain the attention of media professionals, the public, and policy elites. It is a process which helps people to eventually judge and perceive a matter to be more important than the other.
Agenda setting plays an important role in our lives, as it purpose is to inform the public about current and past events. It also controls on the intake of information mediated from different media such as newspaper, radios or television. Through agenda setting, the news is also prioritized and are organized based on its hierarchy of importance.
Agenda setting are of two levels. the first level talks about the common subject that claims to be the most important, and the second level decides what parts of the subject are important. This media, not only influence us on what to think about, evaluating issue an so on, but they also influence how we think on them. They do this by what they call, framing.
Framing determines the salience of one different story with another. They look at what topics are important. The frame processes are firstly, the frame amplification, which is simply clarifying on story or issue. Then, frame extension, which is the adding or extending of the issue to either strengthen them or explaining them further. Frame bridging is similar to extension, which is the linkage of two or more stories. Lastly is the frame transformation which is changing the content of the issue into something entirely different.
Examples below:
It's first level agenda is on the "Massive Tidal wave" that has hit Sri Lanka. Following that, there's a 2nd level agenda, which is somewhat a continuation of the first, but are only focuses on specific parts of the subject. The 2nd level agenda from the newspaper above could be: "Prisoners flee as water pours in".
This also explains and shows the way the issues are framed. It started with the amplification process on the issue, "massive tidal wave". It amplified this issue to show that it is the current hot news for the country. This issue is then extended by adding issues towards what had happen, which is the tidal wave. The frame extension here could be the issue on the prisoners fleeing as the tidal wave's water poured onto the prisoners. Then, there is also frame bridging, which is a linkage of two similar stories. From the article above, this could be how it is a linkage of stories on natural disasters, which is the "Tidal wave" issue, with the "strongest earthquake in 50 years".
Frame transformation is on the "top level meeting at President's house" article. The change of the content of article could be because they wanted to balance the news, to have a balance of good and bad news.
The way this agendas are presented are prioritized based on the demands. Roger and Dearing said that this concept is a process that are of 3 parts.
1) The Media Agenda: This talks about what the media discussed that feels important to them.
2) The Public Agenda: This talks about what the media thinks is important to wards the public.
3) The Policy Agenda: This talks about what is important towards important officials such as the government officials.
In conclusion, this theory has many useful uses towards our society. It controls what we see and hear and then prioritize the news based on what the media thinks is an importance to us. It also show how the media has the power to influence the public, and that the public is free to choose what they want to believe base on the different media there is, since different media presents different issues.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-185.
Dearing, J. W. & Rogers, E. V. (1996). Communication Cocepts 6: Agenda Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Agenda setting plays an important role in our lives, as it purpose is to inform the public about current and past events. It also controls on the intake of information mediated from different media such as newspaper, radios or television. Through agenda setting, the news is also prioritized and are organized based on its hierarchy of importance.
Agenda setting are of two levels. the first level talks about the common subject that claims to be the most important, and the second level decides what parts of the subject are important. This media, not only influence us on what to think about, evaluating issue an so on, but they also influence how we think on them. They do this by what they call, framing.
Framing determines the salience of one different story with another. They look at what topics are important. The frame processes are firstly, the frame amplification, which is simply clarifying on story or issue. Then, frame extension, which is the adding or extending of the issue to either strengthen them or explaining them further. Frame bridging is similar to extension, which is the linkage of two or more stories. Lastly is the frame transformation which is changing the content of the issue into something entirely different.
Examples below:
It's first level agenda is on the "Massive Tidal wave" that has hit Sri Lanka. Following that, there's a 2nd level agenda, which is somewhat a continuation of the first, but are only focuses on specific parts of the subject. The 2nd level agenda from the newspaper above could be: "Prisoners flee as water pours in".
This also explains and shows the way the issues are framed. It started with the amplification process on the issue, "massive tidal wave". It amplified this issue to show that it is the current hot news for the country. This issue is then extended by adding issues towards what had happen, which is the tidal wave. The frame extension here could be the issue on the prisoners fleeing as the tidal wave's water poured onto the prisoners. Then, there is also frame bridging, which is a linkage of two similar stories. From the article above, this could be how it is a linkage of stories on natural disasters, which is the "Tidal wave" issue, with the "strongest earthquake in 50 years".
Frame transformation is on the "top level meeting at President's house" article. The change of the content of article could be because they wanted to balance the news, to have a balance of good and bad news.
The way this agendas are presented are prioritized based on the demands. Roger and Dearing said that this concept is a process that are of 3 parts.
1) The Media Agenda: This talks about what the media discussed that feels important to them.
2) The Public Agenda: This talks about what the media thinks is important to wards the public.
3) The Policy Agenda: This talks about what is important towards important officials such as the government officials.
In conclusion, this theory has many useful uses towards our society. It controls what we see and hear and then prioritize the news based on what the media thinks is an importance to us. It also show how the media has the power to influence the public, and that the public is free to choose what they want to believe base on the different media there is, since different media presents different issues.
Assignment -
"Public Gone Wild"
The Minister of Health of a country "X" is very concerned that the older citizens are spitting and urinating in public places and the younger generation believes that to be a cultural norm. This will adversely affect the image and economy of the country as foreign companies will be less willing to invest in a country that cannot manage public deviance that fosters an unhealthy environment. The government believes that public education must start immediately.
At the same time, a public survey was recently conducted by an independent body and the predominant public concern is the lack of primary schools for younger children who are working and running amok in the streets, which is causing a rise in criminal activities. The public believes that public education must begin with the development of schools so that a higher educated population will curb the acts of social deviance. In the long run, these changes will attract investors and help the economy.
Priority: Public Agenda
First level agenda setting: Public Education
Second-level agenda setting: Children loitering around, Increase in crime, The country's economy, The country's image,
Frame amplification: Focus on how public education can benefit children and then promote on how public education can benefit the public too as a whole
Frame extension: Add the story on how the economy may rise when public education is enforced
Frame bridging: Shows how public education can now keep kids in school, having less crimes. This will lead to a better image of the country and thus investors will gain faith towards the country.
References:
Dearing, J. W. & Rogers, E. V. (1996). Communication Cocepts 6: Agenda Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Communication Accommodation Theory.
Everyone has a specific way of speaking towards different group. Either that towards the elderly, or towards teens, everyone eventually change, back and forth, on how they communicate and interact on different groups. Howard Giles 1972 quoted, “when people interact they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to others”.
Giles said that there are reasons on why we do this. Whether that to converge (to communicate in a similar way to the other individual) or to diverge (to communicate in an accentuated way to maximize oneself), we always find ourselves in situation where we want to be a part and also fit in to a group or try to be different than those in that group to preserve positive identity.
This theory basically tries to ‘accommodate’ for differences within situations.Let us see the examples below to briefly show Communication Accommodation Theory.
Convergence:
(From the hit American sitcom comedy, Friends, by David Crane and Marta Kauffman)
Convergence is basically a process whereby the individual tries to change their speech styles just so they can become more similar to those they're interacting.
The video shows Joey (Matt Leblanc) trying to act the age 19, which is 11 years younger from his real age, just to show that he could pull of being 19. Here, we can see how he shifts his whole personality, just so he can prove that he could pull off 19 when he's interacting with a 19 year old.
Clothing: before, he dresses up like a normal 30-year-old, simple long pants and a buttoned up shirt. Now he's trying to look 19 by wearing how a typical 19 would wear during that time, which is far different from how he would wear clothes, a 30 year old.
Communication: It is obvious that Joey changed his language into that of a 19 year old. He changed his speech patterns so that he could accommodate if he were to talk to a 19 year old. He even change his body language to suit the different context in the conversation, following him being 19.
Giles states "...it is probably safe to assume that these shifts resulted in a favorable appraisal of the speaker that is, they have created an impression that the speaker is trying to accommodate to his or her listener(s)".
Divergence:
(From the supernatural drama television series, Vampire Diaries, by Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec)
Giles and Coupland 1991, refers divergence as “the way in which speakers accentuate speech and nonverbal differences between themselves and others” Divergence talks about how a person change his behavior so that it differs from the other person and they have no intentions on accommodating the other. Divergence can also happen when a person wants to maintain some distance from another person.
The video above shows how Stefan (Paul Wesly) is being a jerk towards Elena (Nina Dobrev). There's a reason why he's being a jerk. He used to be caring and loving towards her (typical romantic couple). But then it all change when the bad guy, Klaus (Joseph Morgan), forced Stefan to hate Elena because of certain reasons, or else he would kill her.
Stefan then change his way of communicating and treated her differently so she could hate him and thus easier for him to move on and not love her anymore. He is diverging so he can create distance between them.
Griffin 2009, mentioned that with divergence, there are 'counter-accommodation', 'under-accommodation' or 'over-accommodation'.Counter-accomodation is basically a direct way of telling the other individual on their contrasts, and maximizing their differences. Under-accomodation is, to simply put it, not accommodating enough, or that the person ignores the other person's way of communicating. Over-accommodating is obviously the opposite, where the individual pays too much attention on the other person's communication style and engage onto an exaggerated compensation.
In conclusion, this theory basically explains why we sometimes change our communication styles, whether that be convergence or divergence. It shows how we can change to either benefit from being a group or benefit from having someone out of a group.
References:
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look At Communication Theory (7th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giles, Howard; Coupland, Joustine; Coupland, N. (1991). "Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence". In Giles, Howard; Coupland, Justine; Coupland, N.. Contexts of Accommodation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistic, 15.
Giles said that there are reasons on why we do this. Whether that to converge (to communicate in a similar way to the other individual) or to diverge (to communicate in an accentuated way to maximize oneself), we always find ourselves in situation where we want to be a part and also fit in to a group or try to be different than those in that group to preserve positive identity.
This theory basically tries to ‘accommodate’ for differences within situations.Let us see the examples below to briefly show Communication Accommodation Theory.
Convergence:
(From the hit American sitcom comedy, Friends, by David Crane and Marta Kauffman)
Convergence is basically a process whereby the individual tries to change their speech styles just so they can become more similar to those they're interacting.
The video shows Joey (Matt Leblanc) trying to act the age 19, which is 11 years younger from his real age, just to show that he could pull of being 19. Here, we can see how he shifts his whole personality, just so he can prove that he could pull off 19 when he's interacting with a 19 year old.
Clothing: before, he dresses up like a normal 30-year-old, simple long pants and a buttoned up shirt. Now he's trying to look 19 by wearing how a typical 19 would wear during that time, which is far different from how he would wear clothes, a 30 year old.
Communication: It is obvious that Joey changed his language into that of a 19 year old. He changed his speech patterns so that he could accommodate if he were to talk to a 19 year old. He even change his body language to suit the different context in the conversation, following him being 19.
Giles states "...it is probably safe to assume that these shifts resulted in a favorable appraisal of the speaker that is, they have created an impression that the speaker is trying to accommodate to his or her listener(s)".
Divergence:
(From the supernatural drama television series, Vampire Diaries, by Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec)
The video above shows how Stefan (Paul Wesly) is being a jerk towards Elena (Nina Dobrev). There's a reason why he's being a jerk. He used to be caring and loving towards her (typical romantic couple). But then it all change when the bad guy, Klaus (Joseph Morgan), forced Stefan to hate Elena because of certain reasons, or else he would kill her.
Stefan then change his way of communicating and treated her differently so she could hate him and thus easier for him to move on and not love her anymore. He is diverging so he can create distance between them.
Griffin 2009, mentioned that with divergence, there are 'counter-accommodation', 'under-accommodation' or 'over-accommodation'.Counter-accomodation is basically a direct way of telling the other individual on their contrasts, and maximizing their differences. Under-accomodation is, to simply put it, not accommodating enough, or that the person ignores the other person's way of communicating. Over-accommodating is obviously the opposite, where the individual pays too much attention on the other person's communication style and engage onto an exaggerated compensation.
In conclusion, this theory basically explains why we sometimes change our communication styles, whether that be convergence or divergence. It shows how we can change to either benefit from being a group or benefit from having someone out of a group.
References:
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look At Communication Theory (7th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giles, Howard; Coupland, Joustine; Coupland, N. (1991). "Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence". In Giles, Howard; Coupland, Justine; Coupland, N.. Contexts of Accommodation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistic, 15.
Genderlect theory of Deborah Tannen
People always quote, “We are all the same.” But is this really the case? For us humans, are we really all the same? When we say “same”, it’s about the way we communicate, about our etiquette, our lifestyle, and our emotions.
This quote is just flawed in certain perspective, especially when we talk about our genders, how women and men are the opposite of the same. Deborah Tannen, 1990, strongly believes that men and women have different ways of communicating, different dialects and that the best way to describe communication between the genders is in a cross-cultural format. She called this, Genderlect theory of Deborah Tannen.
This theory mostly focuses on how the two genders, male and female, are made of different things and how both genders has contrasting styles, in terms of the way they communicate. She generalizes all men and women, assuming that all of them are similar in their own gender, without mentioning about, what Sandra Harding and Julia Wood said, the lives of different women either powerful or the poor, gays and lesbians, and racial minorities.
Although Tannen’s theory is useful in understanding the other gender’s way of communicating preventing miscommunication between gender and help to promote mutual respect by showing how people should appreciate and the style of communication of both gender, it’s credibility is still lacking as it fails to mention the minorities of both gender. It's goal was to acknowledge and accept the communicative culture of the other.
Let us look at the different scenarios, which go against this theory. All examples below is from the hit America sitcom comedy, Friends, by David Crane and Marta Kauffman.
The above video go against Tannen's statement, that the reason we communicate is that for women, is to seek connection, and for men, is to seek status. Griffin (2009, p. 433) foretold that men tell far more stories especially jokes than women do and "telling jokes is a masculine way to negotiate status." By contrast, men are more likely to engage in talk only when it makes them look good, strong, competitive, or independent where women communicate to build and then maintain their relationship.
But then again, not all men are the same. Typically, you can say that men do do that, joke around and engage in talks which made them look good. It's similar to stereotyping that all men can't cook or can't do laundry. The above video says the opposite, how certain men also seek connection and that .
Here, you can see that Rachel (Jennifer Aniston), is in the opposite of the usual typical situation. How it is men who are suppose to comfort women, following what Tannen said, it is men who is suppose to be in control. Paul (Walter Bruce Willis), express his emotions and share personal feelings which is engaging in what women would do, rapport talk. Ayla Abdullah, 2012, also mention that men are the heroes in their own stories. Is Paul the hero in his stories? No he's not!
What about women? Can women have what Tannen describes as men's style of communication?
The above video goes against Tannen's statement, that men talk to get things done (instrumental approach); women talk to interact with others (relational approach). This is justifying that men will talk much more in public arena than women and that they tend to be in control and will exudes more power.
Here, Monica Geller (Courtney Cox), exudes power more than the men in the room. She shows that not only men can be in control and have that leadership ability and that women too, talked in an instrumental approach (the exchange of factual information and to get things done).
The men here too seemed overpowered by Monica, and is unwilling to fight against her, which shows their vulnerability and how men can be afraid of speaking against women in public. This can potentially make them, as what Ayla said, "one-down". Supposedly, men will want to be in control but this video says otherwise. This shows that not all men need to be egoistic.
In conclusion, Tannen's theory may be right in helping people understand the different ways to talk to the different cultural genders, but it is still seem to be more onto her feminist point of view. Harding and Wood mentioned that feminist standpoint theorists suggest that women are underadvantaged, and thus men are overadvantaged.
She also failed to mention the other minorities, or the muted groups (based on gender), such as the gay and lesbian community and on how their way of communicating is. This may vary to the stereotypical gendered world, and may show another different characteristics of men and women.
References:
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Ballantine.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
New relationships involve uncertainty, and these uncertainties are uncomfortable, and so people communicate to relieve them from these discomforts. Basically, when we meet someone new, there's always an urge to know the other party better, either to get information or just simply, to interact, all in all, we will always try to reduce uncertainty that we have towards the other person.
As what Charles R. Berger and Richard J. Calabrese (1975) had mentioned, Information exchange is a basic human function in which individuals request, provide, and exchange information with the goal of reducing uncertainty. Health and Bryant (2000) state: “One of the motivations underpinning interpersonal communication is the acquisition of information with which to reduce uncertainty” Thus saying, we communicate and exchange information so we can reduce uncertainty and improve their predictability and then develop the relationship reflecting upon those uncertainties. Hence, the more you communicate with another individual, the more certain you are towards them.
The motivation towards wanting to reduce these uncertainties revolves around their expectation regarding the relationship. Whether you expect to interact with the other person again and then have a continued interaction, or having a purpose of accomplishing stated goal from the relationship or even deviance, when that person turns out to counter your expectations, you would be most likely want to reduce uncertainty about the individual.
Lets base this theory by inflicting the story of how the usual boy meets girl works, using the scenes in the romantic comedy drama, Crazy Stupid Love (2011).
Jacob (Ryan Gosling) and Hannah (Emma Stone) met in a club when Jacob tried to flirt and seduce Hannah similar to what he did to other girls. This womanizer always succeed on getting his one night stand with women. In the case of Hannah, he didn't, which made him ask cognitive question on who this woman is. Hannah's deviance, her rejection to his never-turn-down proposal, was what made him eager to know more about her. There was also
Hannah, on the other hand, had a different motive in mind. The reason she got back to Jacob, after turning down his preposition, was that she wanted to accomplish a stated goal. After being angry from her false hope towards another guy, she was wanting to try something she never done before, which is to form a relationship based on their physical but not on trust. That was her motivation to search for information. She made herself ask behavioral questions, on "what would happen if or what should i do". Hannah, on the other hand, uses interactive strategy: talk directly to the target. Another strategy is passive, asking others on the target, which not used here.
Once they got together, the supposedly be one-night-stand thing, end up being something different. Self disclosure happened and then uncertainty reduction happened. They came from being strangers, to lovers. How do they get there? It's because of how they are now more certain on the other individual.
During their "self-dislosure" phase, they followed through Berger's 8 different axioms, to reduce uncertainties.
1) Through verbal communication: They talked on matters such as, Hannah asking Jacob on how he usually handle women on the one-night-stand situation.
2) Non-verbal warmth: They fell asleep next to one another.
3) Seeking information: Hannah asking Jacob on how he gets to be rich, which ended up with Jacob talking about his father.
4) Intimacy: They cuddled in bed.
5) Reciprocity: "More i tell you stories, now you tell me yours". They were exchanging stories throughout the night.
6) Similarities: They are both Americans
7) Liking: They both like each other therefor less uncertainty.
8) Shared Networks: It is revealed at the near end of the movie, that Cal (Steven Carell) who was Jacob's friend, is Hannah's dad, hence, less uncertainty.
From the 8 axioms, Berger formulated 28 theorems, by combining any of the two different axioms.
In conclusion, the uncertainty reduction theory has it's strength and weaknesses. It is helpful to predict the initial interaction among strangers. It helped to identify their motives by looking at their strategy and their initiation towards the communication.
However, Kellerman and Reynolds (1990), pointed out that there are high level of uncertainty in interaction that no one wants to reduce. It is also stated that some theorems are illogical. For example, Theorem 17 (the more you like people, the less you seek information about them) . This does not make sense. This thus conclude, that some theorems are flawed, creating weaknesses on the theory itself, whilst it can also be useful to simply observe stranger and see what their motives are.
References:
Griffin, Em. (2009) A First Look At Communication Theory. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berger, C. R., Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some Exploration in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Communication. Human Communication Research,
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts (2nd ed). NY: McGraw Hill
Once they got together, the supposedly be one-night-stand thing, end up being something different. Self disclosure happened and then uncertainty reduction happened. They came from being strangers, to lovers. How do they get there? It's because of how they are now more certain on the other individual.
During their "self-dislosure" phase, they followed through Berger's 8 different axioms, to reduce uncertainties.
1) Through verbal communication: They talked on matters such as, Hannah asking Jacob on how he usually handle women on the one-night-stand situation.
2) Non-verbal warmth: They fell asleep next to one another.
3) Seeking information: Hannah asking Jacob on how he gets to be rich, which ended up with Jacob talking about his father.
4) Intimacy: They cuddled in bed.
5) Reciprocity: "More i tell you stories, now you tell me yours". They were exchanging stories throughout the night.
6) Similarities: They are both Americans
7) Liking: They both like each other therefor less uncertainty.
8) Shared Networks: It is revealed at the near end of the movie, that Cal (Steven Carell) who was Jacob's friend, is Hannah's dad, hence, less uncertainty.
From the 8 axioms, Berger formulated 28 theorems, by combining any of the two different axioms.
In conclusion, the uncertainty reduction theory has it's strength and weaknesses. It is helpful to predict the initial interaction among strangers. It helped to identify their motives by looking at their strategy and their initiation towards the communication.
However, Kellerman and Reynolds (1990), pointed out that there are high level of uncertainty in interaction that no one wants to reduce. It is also stated that some theorems are illogical. For example, Theorem 17 (the more you like people, the less you seek information about them) . This does not make sense. This thus conclude, that some theorems are flawed, creating weaknesses on the theory itself, whilst it can also be useful to simply observe stranger and see what their motives are.
References:
Griffin, Em. (2009) A First Look At Communication Theory. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berger, C. R., Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some Exploration in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Communication. Human Communication Research,
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts (2nd ed). NY: McGraw Hill
Social Penetration Theory
Who would've thought that an onion can help in understanding communication? In Social Penetration theory, it is the case and is quite handy in explaining on how relationships are based on it's breadth and depth. Altman, I., & Taylor, D., (1973) said that, breadth is the array or variety of topics that have been incorporated into individuals' lives. Depth is the amount of information available on each topic. The deeper you cut through the onion, the more smelly or tasty or painful it is to bare. Altman and Taylor believe each opinion, belief, prejudice, and obsession is layered around and within the individual. As people get to know each other, the layers "shed away" to reveal the core of the person. This is an anology of how onion's multilayered skin is our different nature of personality, which is needed to be peeled off to eventually show our true colors, may that be our deep dark secret or our unexpected talent. Hence saying, when one outer-layered skin is peeled, another uncovers itself.This is called the Onion Metaphor.
According to Altman and Taylor, The social penetration theory states that as relationships develop, communication moves from relatively shallow, non intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones. They proposed that closeness occurs through a gradual process of self-disclosure, and it then develops if the participants proceed in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes.
Penetration goes through a number of stages.
It starts off with the orientation stage. This is where simple and small talks kicks, where harmless clichés like "Yeah, me too" or "Good for you" are often used. At this stage, people tend to just follow the social norm of appropriateness and act a desirable behavior so that they can make, well, a good first impression, and so they can get what they want (usually friendship, or the help with works etc.)
After some time, we now will eventually start to explore one another. It's a process of revealing ourselves; and expressing our feelings towards moderate topics, such as the government, education and so on. This is usually of mutual belief, and that we won't usually express the whole truth towards them, hiding fractures of the truth for the sake of acceptance. At this stage, we won't be comfortable enough to share some of our deeper and more intimate feelings. This can be regard as a casual friendship. This stage is known as exploratory affective stage.
The third, is when it all gets serious. There's intimacy, trust, and thus the comfort of exchanging secrets is there. This is the affective stage where we start to talk about private and personal matters. Secluded thoughts and expressions by now, uncovers itself. Criticism, which is rare before, now starts to rise and arguments too became common. Touching and kissing may also occur in this stage, in the case of couples. This stage equivalent to romantic couples, married couples, best friends, etc.
The stable stage, as what the terms itself describe, is where the relationship starts to stabilize, and having each other knowing their own true colors. At this stage there's an immediate connection of feelings or in other words, they are somewhat linked, knowing each others feeling by just looking at simple signs (face expression, body language) of the other person. Altman and Taylor mentioned that by now, the relationship reaches a plateau in which personal things are shared and each can predict the emotional reactions of the other person.
The last and lets just say, the least desirable stage is the depenetration stage. In every relationship, the law of reciprocity is crucial. William Morrow, 1993 said that one of the most potent of the weapons of influence around us is the rule for reciprocation. The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us. Therefore, it is important for us to put in effort in a relationship, having both parties to try and initiate communication so the relationship won't backslide. There's a need for both to self-disclose, and that both repay each other, so it doesn't seem that only one side of the relationship is actually preserving. If that is the case, then the relationship will start to break down as the cost exceeds the benefit. Simply saying, the cost is that "one person" having to put in efforts to preserve and eventually trying to heal the relationship, by self disclosing and so on. But when there isn't any form of "paying back the debts" or having no response, or less effort from the other party, as what Morrow said, then there will eventually disclosure of the relationship leading to termination. This is then said to have the cost exceeding the benefit.
This theory makes it's prediction based on the levels of self disclosure, that when self disclosure is high, relationship will develop. Lets now apply this theory to Monica and Richard's relationship in the hit American sitcom comedy by David Crane and Marta Kauffman.
Monica (Courtney Cox) knew Richard (Tom Selleck) from her father; due to them being friends and having him as her eye doctor since her childhood years. It is then foreseen that their orientation stage started when Monica was still a kid, and Richard as an adult. During then, Richard only knew Monica as "my best friend, Jack's daughter".
Years after, the exploratory affective stage then started when Monica worked as Richard's caterer. They build their conversations through Richard's recent divorce. This is similar to cutting through the depth of the onion by talking about one topic and then digging them deeper and having to joke on them and also giving the typical pity responses. They are self-disclosing, with an awareness to stay appropriate and follow the standards of social norms.
This then eventually leads to something more. Monica was attracted to Richard, and yes, it was a two way street. Long story short, they kissed. This is then the affective stage, with both started to share on how they feel towards each other. They started to talk on private and personal matters as their relationship gradually grows. They also criticize on matters such as how to reveal their relationship towards Monica's parents.
After a while, it is then the stable stage. It began when they both shared a mutual knowledge of having to love one another. They also shared their somewhat deepest secret (their onion's core) when they started to talk about their "obsessive behavior/weird thing". Monica told Richard on her obsessive cleaning behavior, while Richard told her, in return, his "weird thing"; how he needs to sleep on the west side of the bed. By then, they were able to predict the emotional reactions of the other person. For example, when Monica started to look anxious and starts to question everything, Richard would know that there's something wrong.
Their relationship depenetrated because of their difference of opinion. It is also based on how Richard cannot "repay" Monica. They both wanted to be together for life, but it's Richard's unwillingness to give her what she wanted (children), was what made them decide to terminate their relationship. Looking at the cost-benefit analysis, if they were to go on with the relationship, the cost for Monica was to not have children, and her benefit was, of course, Richard. But then the cost for Monica far exceeds the benefit, which made them decide to disclose the relationship.
This is similar to what everyone experience in life. Meet someone, become friends, and then depenetrate if you decide that you don't like them. But then again, though what Altman and Taylor suggested seems to be applicable to real world experiences, they however seem to ignore major facts and factors which may be a part of how self-disclosure really works. A few of this might be the different races and ethnic background which may differentiate the way each individual communicate. Gender is also a factor and all this factors contributes to the rate on how the onion is "shed".
References:
Altman, I., & Taylor, D., (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Altman, I. and Taylor, D. A. (1973) Social Penetration, New York: Holst, Rinehart, Winston
Robert B.Cialdini, 1993, author of The Psychology of Persuasion, William Morrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)