Comm250 - week4 PDF

Preview

Summary

Susan Hubbard, COMM250, Winter Semester ...

Description

Module 4 Notes ● Interpersonal Communication Theories ○ Uncertainty Reduction Theory ***first interpersonal COMMUNICATION THEORY ■ Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese (1975) ● Initial Interaction Theory ■ Goal of URT ● To explain how uncertainty in initial encounters between strangers is reduced by communication ● To predict communication behavior of strangers in initial encounters ○ Is a laws theory ■ Concepts ● Cognitions ○ Beliefs and attitudes ● Uncertainty ○ Cognitive: the doubt  s people harbor about their own beliefs/attitudes and those of others ○ Behavioral: doubts about our own actions as well as the actions of others ■ Relates to extent of predictability of behavior ● Verbal Output ○ What are we saying? How are we talking? ● Non-verbal warmth ○ Smiles, body language, hugging, etc ● Information seeking ○ Where are you from? What do you do? Etc ● Self disclosure ● Reciprocity of disclosure ○ Trading information back and forth ● Similarity ● Liking ■ Assumptions ● In interpersonal settings, people experience uncertainty ● Uncertainty is aversive resulting in cognitive tension (stress) ● In initial encounters, strangers are mainly concerned with reducing uncertainty (increasing predictability) ● Interpersonal communication is developmental

○ Entry ■ When people meet each other for the first time ■ Communication dictated by rules/norms ● Hi, how are you ○ Personal ■ When people communicate more spontaneously and casually ○ Exit ■ When people decide to continue the relationship, or to move on ● Think: tindr dates ● The main way to reduce uncertainty is through interpersonal communication ● The amount and type of information people share changes with time ● Behavior can be predicted in a law-like manner ■ Explanation ● When strangers meet for the first time they are unsure of their own and other’s thoughts and behaviors ● People are motivated to reduce uncertainty via communication ● People can then better explain and predict their own actions and those of others ■ Axioms and Theorems ● Axiom: self evident or universally recognised truth ● Theorem: “general proposition that is not self-evident, but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truth ■ URT Axioms ● Axiom 1 ○ As the amount of verbal comm b/w strangers increases, the levels of uncertainty decrease (negative relationship) ● Axiom 2 ○ As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease ○ Negative relationship ● Axiom 3 ○ High levels of uncertainty cause increases in info-seeking behavior ■ You ask more questions

■ Positive relationship ● Axiom 4 ○ As the intimacy level of comm content increases, uncertainty decreases ● Axiom 5 ○ As uncertainty increases, higher levels of reciprocity are present ■ I tell you my name, you tell me your name ● Axiom 6 ○ Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty ● Axiom 7 ○ As we like someone more, we are less uncertain ■ Development of URT Theorems (generated from axioms) ● Use deductive logic ○ If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C ○ Use the rules of multiplication ○ Ex:

■ Related Research: Expansions ● Additional Axioms: ○ Axiom 8 ■ As interaction with the social networks of another person increases, uncertainty decreases ○ Axiom 9

■ As communication satisfaction increases, uncertainty decreases ● Antecedent Conditions (other things that can make you want to decrease levels of uncertainty) ○ When there is a potential to reward or punish ■ Ex: you’re sexually attracted to them ○ When the other person behaves contrary to expectations ○ When future interaction is expected ■ Your boyfriend’s best friend (Daniel) ● Uncertainty Reduction Strategies ○ Passive ■ You watch them interact with other people ○ Active ■ Ask your friend about the other person ○ Interactive ■ Direct contact ○ Uncertainty acceptance (established relationships) ■ Don’t wanna know so, accepting uncertainty ● Developed relationships (beyond initial encounter) ● Context (i.e. uncertainty reduction in different cultures) ■ Criticisms ● Utility ○ Alternative explanations (for primary motivation) ■ Sunnafrank Theory of predicted outcome value ● Validity ○ Axiom 3 (information seeking/uncertainty) ■ How does URT Define Comm? ● Cognition, thought, and perception ■ Metatheoretical assumptions ● Ontological? ○ Do humans make real choices? Yes ○ Is human experience individual or social? Individual ○ Is human experience contextualized? Yes ○ Social Penetration Theory ■ Altman & Taylor (1973) ● Social Penetration: The Development of Relationships O  ver Time ○ Goal ■ To explain how relational closeness (i.e. intimacy) develops

○ Concepts ■ Social Penetration ● The process of social bonding whereby people move from superficial communication to more intimate communication ■ Self Disclosure ● The purposeful process of revealing information about yourself to another person ■ Reciprocity of Self Disclosure ● You give what you get ● You want to know the same information that you give ○ I tell you my name, i want to know your name ■ Intimacy ● Intellectual or emotional closeness ○ NOT physical ○ Assumptions ■ Relationships… ● Progress from non-intimate to intimate ● Develop systematically and predictably ● Include depenetration and dissolution ● Develop through self disclosure ○ Breadth and Depth of Self-Disclosure ■ Breadth ● The amount of different things we discuss with the other person ■ Depth ● Superficial vs. Intimate ■ Non-intimate info is shared first ■ SD leads to vulnerability ● risk/trust ■ SD is reciprocal in early stages ■ SD begins fast and then tapers off ● SD and Liking ○ Dump Truck effect

○ We like the person more as they give us more information, UNLESS they share too much info too quickly ● Stranger on the Train Syndrome ○ Stages of the Social Penetration Process

○ Evaluation of SPT ■ Positives ● Parsimonious ● Valid ● Heuristic ■ Negatives ● Too simple ○ Limited scope ● Relationship development may not be linear ● Too much emphasis on SD ○ Meta-theoretical ■ Ontological ● Do humans make real choices? Eh ● Is human experience basically individual or social? ● Is human experience contextualized? ○ Relational Dialectics Theory ■ Leslie Baxter & Barbara Montgomery (1996)

■

■ ■

■

● Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics Influenced by work of Mikhail Bakhtin ● Interaction as basis of meaning making ● “Humans experience collisions between opposing desires and needs within relational communications” Baxter & Braithwaite (2008) Goal ● To understand dialectical tensions within relationships ○ Relationships are always in process and relational life is characterized by ongoing  tensions between contradictory impulses Approaches ● Monologic ○ Contradictions are either/or ○ A ------- B ● Dualistic ○ Contradictions are separate and somewhat unrelated ■ Both people have different perspectives ■ |A |B ● *** Dialectic *** ○ Multiple points of view ○

■ Assumptions ● Relationships are not linear ● Relational life is characterized by change ● Contradictions are fundamental to relational life ● Communication is central to negotiating relational contradictions ○ Comm = healthy relationship ■ Concepts ● Totality ○ People in relationships are interdependent ○ Social and cultural contexts affect the process ● Contradiction ○ Dialectics are the result of oppositions ■ Intimate vs. distant

● Motion ○ Relationships are processes and change over time ● Praxis ○ People are choice makers ■ choice limits choices ■ Basic Interactional Dialectics ● Openness and Protection ○ Vulnerable vs. Guarded ■ Ex: you’re divorced, but don’t talk about it or the kids until later in the relationship ● Novelty and Predictability ○ Excitement vs. Stability ■ You don’t want to be uncomfortable but you also don’t want to be bored ● Autonomy and Connection ○ Independence vs. Intimacy ■ We want to be able to do what we want but we also want intimacy

1. How is this video clip an example of the theory’s boundary condition of “initial interactions”? What does this tell us about URT’s scope? Like in the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, this video clip depicts the initial communication (first meeting) between two individuals. This tells us that URT’s scope may not be broad enough, because it only applies to participants’ interpersonal “entry” interactions, but not to the personal and exit communication that follows. 2. How is this clip reflective of URT’s assumption that interpersonal communication is developmental? In the clip, the entry communication between Chip and Sarah is when Chip approaches her with a cheesy pick-up line, and Sarah responds sarcastically. The personal communication would be more on Chip’s end -- he kept asking her questions and trying to impress her, but Sarah skipped to the exit communication, where she decided that she did not want the interaction with Chip to

continue. Chip’s exit communication occurred when Alex came in and pretended to be her boyfriend, scaring Chip off. In the entry communication between Sarah and Alex, Alex starts off by helping Sarah to get rid of a man that was obviously bothering her. The personal communication followed when Alex made his intentions with Sarah clear. They then introduced themselves and talked about what they do for a living; they got to know each other a bit. The exit communication came when Alex concluded that he wanted to see Sarah again, and he left the scene to allow her to make her own decision by saying “it’s a pleasure to meet you.” Sarah’s exit communication was nothing more than a nod, followed by her getting up to try to follow Alex (however, she gets intercepted by a friend). 3. Provide several examples of URT’s axioms and/or theorems working in this scene. ● Axiom 1 ○ As Alex and Sarah talk more, the amount of uncertainty between them decreases, and Sarah becomes more comfortable with Alex’s presence. ● Axiom 3 ○ As Alex finds further interest (and therefore uncertainty) about Sarah, he asks her more questions to try to get to know her better. ● Axiom 4 ○ As the intimacy level of Alex and Sarah’s conversation increases (increase in flirtatious behavior), their uncertainty of each other decreases. ● Axiom 7 ○ As Sarah decides that she does not like Chip, she becomes more uncertain about him (and more uncomfortable).

4. What uncertainty reduction strategies do Hitch and the other “suitor” use to reduce their uncertainty about Sara Melas? Chip namely only uses an intersectional strategy to reduce his uncertainty about Sarah; he simply engages her in conversation and tries to talk to her (ineffectively). Alex however uses passive, active, and interactive strategies to to reduce his uncertainty about Sarah. His passive strategy is to ask the bartender what Sarah is drinking, in order to gauge her personality and/or mood. He then observes Sarah’s reactions and behavior in dealing with Chip -- this was his active strategy. Finally, Alex took an interactive approach when he finally engaged in conversation with Sarah and actually began to converse with her and exchanged information.

5. Can you use URT theory and its axioms, assumptions, and theorems to better manage your feelings of uncertainty when you meet new people? How? Yes, one could use the URT theories and axioms to understand how to more effectively reduce uncertainty when initiating conversations.

1. What do you think about the assumption of SPT: "Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development"? Do you agree with that assumption? What other ways can people get emotionally closer to each other, if not through self-disclosure? I do agree that self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development, however, there are other factors that can make people emotionally closer to each other. Self disclosure can include everything from normal conversation to intimacy, and can breed both platonic and romantic relationships. However, experiences can also help to create strong bonds between people. This could include a traumatic event that two people may have suffered through together, or having a mutual illness or condition that can be hard to understand without experience. This is why people in support groups can form very strong emotional relationships. 2. Are texting and FaceBook and other social media good substitutes for the traditional ways of getting to know people? Explain why or why not. Texting and social media can be used as substitutes or as compliments in getting to know people. I myself started my relationship with my boyfriend on Facebook; we started talking after friending each other because of mutual friends. However, texting and facebook can only get people so far; it may not be possible to reach the “efficient communication” stage without any face to face conversation or physical contact. 3. Do men share the same strategies for getting to know other men as friends in the same way women make friends with other women? Why or why not? When does a man know that he has a true friend with another man? I think that male friendships and female friendships are actually very different. Women tend to put more value in deep conversation and strong commitment, while male friends are usually more likely to identify as “close” simply because they have a sense of trust and loyalty between them.

1. What are the dialectical struggles you see going on for Ross in this scene? In other words, the "humor" is based on dialectical tension. Use the above terms from the theory to explain what is going on in the couple’s relationship. Ross’s main dialectical struggle is that between autonomy vs. connection. Rachel wants her work life to be independent from her personal life (including her relationship with Ross); she wants autonomy in her work, but to also maintain her romantic connection with Ross. From his body language at the end of the scene, it is clear that Ross

however would like to keep his connection with all aspects of Rachel’s life (including her work), despite the facts that he says he doesn’t mind. 2. Use the ideas from Relational Dialectics Theory or Social Penetration Theory to explain why the dialectic of “getting closer/maintaining autonomy” didn't "work" for Ross. Relational Dialectics Theory states that human relationships are always in process and that relational life is characterized by ongoing tensions between contradictory impulses; RDT’s goal is to understand these dialectic tensions. In this scene, Ross and Rachel are experiencing cyclic alternation. They are experiencing different things at varying points in their life; Rachel has just started her new job, and wants Ross to stay out of that “world.” Her priority is to focus on her work and her own self-growth, and does not see that this has had any impact on her and Ross’s relationship. Ross however has felt that he and Rachel had been growing apart -- he wants total connection with Rachel’s life. 3. Compare the "heuristic" qualities of Relational Dialectics with those of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Do you think both theories have equal explanatory and predictive strengths? Both Relational Dialectics Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory possess varying heuristic qualities. When first listening to the lecture on RDT, I was surprised to find that it effectively explained many arguments and conflicts that I have experienced with those that I am close to. However, I believe that while RDT can predict what will go wrong in a relationship, URT can better explain how things can go for the better. But, the seven axioms explain the relationships between communication and uncertainty, while RDT outlines the main conflicts that people feel that can cause friction in a relationship. Therefore, in a way, they also share a purpose; they both possess both exploratory and predictive strengths. URT may still be more usable in daily life, as it is more parsimonious and applicable, but it’s purpose is just as important as that of Relational DIalectics.

4. Give an example from your own life where you feel or felt a dialectic pull between two opposites. For example, you might appreciate your parents for looking out for your well being, but you may resent them for always telling you what to do. An example in my life when I feel a dialectic pull between two opposites is when I meet someone for the first time, and have to decide when to tell someone that I identify as bisexual. This is an example of the openness vs. guarded dialectic. While I do want to be open with people about who I am, and I am proud to be part of the LGBT community,

there is a social stigma that comes with being “gay” in our society, especially among older generations. Therefore, while I am an open person who likes to talk about myself, I won’t tell people about my sexual orientation until I (1) know their stance on the topic, and (2) trust them enough to know that it won’t change anything....