INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

INTRODUCTION

Communication scholars have a long history of studying public discourse. Researchers have investigated public address and oratory as well as messages communicated to the public through print and electronic forms. However, in the late 1960s there was a realization that relatively little was known about the interaction processes that are more private and personal. In response to this void, the study of interpersonal communication began. Interpersonal communication scholars found that few of the models associated with public discourse informed about conversations, and they turned to allied fields and disciplines for theory. Hence, perspectives such as symbolic interactionism, social exchange theory, and relational pragmatics were imported from other social sciences.

Interpersonal communication was heavily focused on face-to-face interaction, and, with the growth of information technology and social networking, many interpersonal scholars have concentrated on computer mediated communication.

These principles underlie the workings in real life of interpersonal communication. They are basic to communication. We can't ignore them, according to this definition; Interpersonal communication is inescapable we can't not communicate. The very attempt not to communicate communicates something. Through not only words, but through tone of voice and through gesture, posture, facial expression, etc. we constantly communicate to those around us. Through these channels, we constantly receive communication from others. Even when you sleep, you communicate. Remember a basic principle of communication in general: people are not mind readers. Another way to put this is: people judge you by your behavior, not your intent.

Interpersonal communication is irreversible /permanent/; you can't really take back something once it has been said. The effect must inevitably remain. Despite the instructions from a judge to a jury to "disregard that last statement the witness made," the lawyer knows that it can't help but make an impression on the jury. A Russian proverb says, "Once a word goes out of your mouth, you can never swallow it again."

We don't actually swap ideas; we swap symbols that stand for ideas. This also complicates communication. Words (symbols) do not have inherent meaning; we simply use them in certain ways, and no two people use the same word exactly alike. Interpersonal communication is contextual, In other words, communication does not happen in isolation. There is:

• Psychological context, which is who you are and what you bring to the interaction. Your, needs, desires, values, personality, etc. all form the psychological context. ("You" here refers to both participants in the interaction.)
• Relational context, which concerns your reactions to the other person--the "mix."
• Situational context deals with the psycho-social "where" you are communicating. An interaction that takes place in a classroom will be very different from one that takes place in a bar.
• Environmental context deals with the physical "where" you are communicating. Furniture, location, noise level, temperature, season, time of day, all is examples of factors in the environmental context.
• Cultural context includes all the learned behaviors and rules that affect the interaction. If you come from a culture (foreign or within your own country) where it is considered rude to make long, direct eye contact, you will out of politeness avoid eye contact. If the other person comes from a culture where long, direct eye contact signals trustworthiness, then we have in the cultural context a basis for misunderstanding in interpersonal communication.

Real-life interpersonal communication is sometimes confusing, often unpredictable, and always involves more than just the speaker’s action. This realization has led some observers to propose an interactive model for interpersonal communication.

Suppose you drew the saying “God helps those who help themselves.” For God you might try folding your hands and gazing upward. For helps you could act out offering a helping hand or giving a leg-up boost over a fence. By pointing at a number of real or imaginary people you may elicit a response of them, and by this point a partner may shout out, “God helps those who help themselves.” Success.

In interpersonal communication theories categorized under four form of communication;

INTERPERSONAL MESSAGES

·         Symbolic Interactionism (Mead)

·         Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) (Pearce & Cronen)

·         Expectancy Violations Theory (Burgoon)

·         Constructivism (Delia)

RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT

·         . Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor)

·         Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger)

·         Social Information Processing Theory (Walther)

RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE

·         Relational Dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery)

·          Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio)

·          The Interactional View (Watzlawick)

INFLUENCE

·         Social Judgment Theory (Sherif)

·         Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo)

·         Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM of George Herbert Mead

Mead’s symbolic interactionism: Humans act toward people, things, and events on the basis of the meanings they assign to them. Once people define a situation as real, it has very real consequences. Without language there would be no thought, no sense of self, and no socializing presence of society within the individual.

Symbolic Interaction (George Herbert Mead, 1934) all communication is symbolic and based upon interaction and meaning.

 

Main concept

Symbolic interaction comes from the sociocultural perspective in that it relies on the creation of shared meaning through interactions with others. This theory focuses on the ways in which people form meaning and structure in society through interactions. People are motivated to act based on the meanings they assign to people, things, and events. (Mead, 1934).

Without symbolic interaction, humanity as we know it wouldn’t exist. Symbolic interaction isn’t just talk. The term refers to the language and gestures a person uses in anticipation of the way others will respond. The verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then provides are likewise crafted in expectation of how the original speaker will react.

Mead’s greatest contribution to our understanding of the way we think is his notion that human beings have the unique capacity to take the role of the other. Early in life, kids role-play the activities of their parents, talk with imaginary friends, and take constant delight in pretending to be someone else. As adults, we continue to put ourselves in the place of others and act as they would act, although the process may be less conscious. Mead was convinced that thinking is the mental conversation we hold with others, always with an eye toward how they might see us and react to what we might do.

Symbolic Interaction argues the world is made up of social objects that are named and have socially determined meanings. When people interact over time they come to shared meaning for certain terms and actions and thus come to understand events in particular ways. There are three main concepts in this theory: society, self and mind.

Society: Social Acts (which create meaning) involve an initial gesture from one individual, a response to that gesture from another and a result. Ownership value of communication aliveness or not the basic determinant. This we call it feedback and assurance of response.

Self: Self image comes from interaction with others based on others perceptions.

Through internal and external identity makes self meaning that communication. A person makes sense of the world and defines their “self” through social interactions. One’s self is a significant object and like all social objects it is defined through social interactions with others.

Mind:/power house/ your ability to use significant symbols to respond to yourself makes thinking possible. You define objects in terms of how you might react to them. Objects become what they are through our symbolic minding process (Foss & Littlejohn, 2008).every definition comes to exert in our life mind of control unit according to which the value we can give an asset.

Constructs for this theory include creation of meaning, social norms, human interactions, and signs and symbols. An underlying assumption for this theory is that meaning and social reality are shaped from interactions with others and that some kind of shared meaning is reached. The boundary conditions for this theory are there must be numerous people communicating and interacting and thus assigning meaning to situations or objects.

 (Griffin, 1997) view close to (Mead, 1934) the theory consists of three core principles: meaning, language and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997).

Example

A lover who is waited his girl friend on his appointment place. But she is too late he thinks twice the one his self –thought and social value; she is late because of the deny me, ignore and irrespective even she is playing another boy then he receive her arrogantly why she late? Is that undermining the value of mine… question construct his mind and make response verbally and non verbal forum of communication? The other forum of thinking deconstruct like my love is late because of accident is that something happen over her. He makes a pray for a good will come too his face. And when she come he erect his hand and take dearly are you ok am so tensioned because of you late is there anything bad even you will come and give wide hag for his love. Several interpretations in the interpersonal communication forum of symbol, society construction value, self framing (glass of persons) experience situational analysis and mind process definition.

Suggestions and critics in my view according to scholars taught;

Meaning is contextual determination not every ones accepted and work the properly for communication. Meaning come been live with explicit and implicit .we say in our life give for the things/symbols / different intensity we call peoples s/he is easy going and careless and someone who we define strict for every easy things give an attention every small particles. That is human form of understanding. Mead is highly interpretative looking person in the vein of a war code man find the truths. This forum of interpretation put together us unwanted quarrel or unsteady relationship.

According to mead THE SELF: REFLECTIONS IN A LOOKING GLASS our view of magnitudenal thinking is like a spray or a diamond which we look in different angle and perception of our life. Symbolic interactionists are convinced that the self is a function of language.

Without talk there would be no self-concept. ”We are not born with senses of self. Rather, selves arise in interaction with others. I can only experience myself in relation to others; absent interaction with others, I cannot be a self—I cannot emerge as someone.” I believe that peoples are learning and know everything in the surrounding environment. But he/she imitate or innovate themselves. That is the difference between I and me. “If the ‘I’ speaks, the ‘me’ hears.”

And “the ‘I’ of this moment is present in the ‘me’ of the next moment.”

Remember how human beings start to communicate first they make symbols environments crop on their mind as visualization. See and learn how to leave to make unity starting from collecting fruits until hunting and gathering development of human beings is development of communication. This symbolic form of communication leads to verbal sound who they are hearing in nature diversification.

Now meanings are not static it changes across culture, technological development and innovations. Development of communication crates new environmental symbol and meaning rooted in birth and death of languages are in process. Every movement of life situation, conditions, attitude, living satus, psychological influence, belief under circumstance.

Symbolic Interaction main strong point identifies and considers both the individual's thoughts on how they fit into society and their social interactions in developing that self image. It can help us understand how meaning is created which can translate into the study of many other communication theories.Draw attentions to the association between the meaning of symbols and a person’s behavior. In a way, certain behaviors may be predicted. It may the theory runs to the expectancy form of theory developed

This theory it provides a general view of how humans interact with and ascribe meaning to symbols around them, it is often too difficult to test because it is based on subjective interpretations. Our social identities are always being constructed by our interactions with each other, based on our interpretations of each other. Personal identity becomes a creative and joint effort. By focusing on subjective interpretations, the theory overstates the subjective basis of society. In other words, discrepancies in meanings are not mentioned and other factors that might influence interpretations are ignored. Also the week side of the theory Symbols may be interpreted incorrectly or differently among different groups of people.

One problem: It's very difficult to quantify things in Symbolic Interactionism because SI deals with interpretations and is thus subjective by nature. Except for very sexist behavior, it's hard to determine if someone is reacting to a stereotype or acting "naturally"  there is no way to have a pure "control group" because we are all socialized by the act of living together in a society from birth.

These things do not have an inherent or unvarying meaning, when the meaning is vary according to culture and custom it can interpret to different and the interpersonal communication is fail. Rather, their meanings differ depending on how we define and respond to them. how we define, or give meaning to the things we encounter will shape our actions toward them Therefore, if we wish to understand human behavior we must know how people define the things objects, events, individuals, groups, structures—they encounter in their environment this is attacks to every movement of socialization and technological time answer happing questions blocked. Language and signs are crated every movement of human life. So it crates gaps between the people. We are not born knowing the meanings of things.  Generations create every level age of communicational sign and language to understand part of it. We don’t learn these meanings simply through individual experiences, but rather through the interactions with others. Since people are symbolic creatures, they can interpret and talk about their inner experiences, such as their thoughts or desires, thus enhancing communication and interactions with others.

References

Key publications A_First_Look_at_Communication_Theory___8th_Edition_

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving. (1958). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.

Ed. by McDermott, J. (1981). The Philosophy of John Dewey, Chicago.

The society for More Creative Speech. (1996). Symbolic Interactionism as Defined by Herbert Blumer. http:www.thepoint.net/-usul/text/blumer.html

EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY of Judee Burgoon

Human communications is decide whether good or bad, according to interpersonal relationship as a good will and decent friends also arises and contradictions rise conflicts in the divergent interest of the people. It is an imagination judgment of brief of things which it happens or not.

People have expectations about how other people should and will behave. Their reaction to the deviations of others from expectancy depends on what they have to lose or gain. This theory brings together two components: proximity /the study of person’s space/ and kinesics /the study of communication and body language/. It involves the space between individuals, the ‘proper’ distance to be maintained (within contexts relationships) and what happens when the boundaries are crossed. Also, the communicator, or violator, has a degree of power either in the present situation or a possible future one that influences the interpretation of his/her actions. The theory was later applied to other forms of nonverbal behavior and subsequently to other acts of communication, and is now referred to as EVT. It is considered a theory of communication processes, and more specifically a theory of discourse and interaction. Recently, the theory has undergone some reconstitution by Burgoon and her colleagues and has resulted in a newer theory known as Interaction Adaptation Theory, which is a more comprehensive explanation of adaptation in interpersonal interaction.
This is often about non-verbal behavior (body language).Expectancy Violation Theory sees communication as the exchange of information which is high in relational content and can be used to violate the expectations of another which will be perceived as either positively or negatively depending on the liking between the two people. Expectancy Violations Theory attempts to explain people’s reactions to unexpected behavior. Expectancies are primarily based upon social norms and specific characteristics of the communicators. Violations of expected behavior cause arousal and uncertainty in people. People then look to explain the violation in order to better predict another’s behavior. Theorists: Judee Burgoon, 1978,p94
When our expectations are violated, we will respond in specific ways.  If an act is unexpected and is assigned favorable interpretation, and it is evaluated positively, it will produce more favorable outcomes than an expected act with the same interpretation and evaluation.
This theory assumes that humans have a certain amount of free will.  This is because it assumes that humans can survey and interpret the relationship and liking between themselves and their conversational partner and then make a decision whether or not to violate the expectations of the other person depending on what outcome they would like to achieve. 
The Expectancy Violations theory assumes that there is one truth.  This truth is that there are norms for all communication activities and if these norms are violated, there will be specific, predictable outcomes. This theory seeks to be value-neutral because the study was done empirically and seeks to objectively describe how humans react when their expectations are violated.
Critique:
I agree with the critic Expectancy Violations Theory is a scientific theory because it assumes that there is only one truth.  It further assumes that these norms and reactions to their violations are universal.  It seeks to predict the outcomes that will result when specific violations are presented. The Expectancy Violations theory is a very practical and useful theory because it assumes that there are universal norms and reactions to violations to those norms.  It also seeks to predict what the reactions to each violation of norms will be.
Example:

An applicable example to help understand Expectancy Violations Theory can be demonstrated when Chris goes for a job interview.  He feels that he is not getting very positive feedback from the potential employer, so he knows he should not violate expectancies and further hurt his chances of impressing the interviewer.  However, if Chris suddenly felt more confident about the relationship he was building with the interviewer, he might consciously violate his or her expectations.  He could pick up a picture on his or her desk and comment positively on the picture, hoping that this act would make him positively stick out in the employer's mind later. We all have ‘body space’ outside of which we expect other people to remain except in specific conditions. When the other person is too close, I will feel threatened as it gives them the ‘first strike’ capability should the situation become aggressive.

Personal space- The invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that individual’s preferred distance from others. There are four zones of body space (for the average American): Intimate distance: from 0 to 18 inches. For sexual and other intimate contact. Personal distance: from 18 inches to 4 feet. Typically for interactions with family and close friends. Social distance: from 4 to 12 feet. Typically for casual and social settings. Public distance: from 12 feet and beyond. Typically for formal situations. It is so far social intimacy like anigheborhood of houses, so community relativeness. When talking with other people, we also have expectations about what is too far away. If a person stands too distant from me, I might wonder if I smell or are socially unattractive in some way. Judee Burgoon, 1978,p85.

How we react to violations depend on reward value, or what we expect to get from the relationship. Thus a man is likely to react more positively towards an attractive younger woman standing close than a larger man from an out-group.

Suggestion

It is a big decider in our communication in EVT truth assumes bounded norm, ethics and values of the people. someone who out of the boundary lost his life of elmentness society judgment it may cause of conteradectery.norm is alien of expectancy result form a good or bad form of communication. The other immense thing which concern in EVT source is personal emotion, belief, understanding qualities. This makes one whether a person violate decide or not.

Any law which violates the indefeasible rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical/authoritarian/; it is not a law at all. In the bible peter deny gods before the cook heard is voice, on this theory human form of personality measurement is not logically underlined. Because human behavior; age, psychology interaction and society defination is expectancy of what will behave happen or not help us. violation are never expected any level situation am not agree a universal only one truth how can even is that in this world have only one truth even if a  social science philosophy. Respect dignity and benefits are defined expectancy violation consciously and unconsciously (drinking and health problem), Sometimes violence is a way of expression power superiority. Violence sometimes a forum of communication

Other critics of EVT believe most interaction between individuals is extremely complex and there are many contingency conditions to consider within the theory. This makes the prediction of behavioral outcomes of a particular situation virtually impossible.
Three primary assumptions predicate Expectancy Violations Theory. First, people seek to reward others and seek to avoid punishing others, as explained by Social Exchange Theory. Second, behavior violations arouse and distract, calling attention to the qualities of the violator and the relationship between the interactants. Third, the evaluation of the violation is based upon the relationship between the particular behavior and the valence of the actor.
EVT proposes that observation and interaction with others leads to expectancies. The two types of expectancies noted are predictive and prescriptive. Predictive expectancies let people know what to expect based upon what typically occurs within the context of a particular environment and relationship. For example, a husband and wife may have a morning routine in which the husband always kiss her lips. If he were to ignore her lips one morning, this might be seen as a predictive discrepancy/disagreement/.
A key component to EVT is the notion of violation valence, or the association the receiver places on the behavior violation. A violator’s response to an expectancy violation can be positive or negative and is dependent on two conditions: positive or negative interpretation of the behavior and the nature (rewardingness) of the violator. Rewardingness of the violator is evaluated through many categories – attractiveness, prestige, ability to provide resources, or associated relationship. For instance, a violation of one’s personal space might have more positive valence if committed by a wealthy, powerful, physically appealing member of the opposite sex than a filthy, poor, homeless person with foul breath. I see weakness of the theory here according to sex valiance interactions in keeping with sex is different opposite sexes are closer than intimacy similar sex.

example; a person who is gone on the road and find someone who is asks where is gone and he replay am gone to find violence, then surprise that answer where do you find the conflict? Asks him he answer for him kicking the box and you don't interfere me! Think it more a person who is concern it. Always ready situation of violence.
Recommended resource: A_First_Look_at_Communication_Theory___8th_Edition_

Judee K. Burgoon and Jerold Hale, “Nonverbal Expectancy

Violations: Model Elaboration and Application to Immediacy Behaviors,” Communication

Monographs, Vol. 55, 1988, pp. 58–79.

Judee K. Burgoon, “A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations:

Explication and an Initial Test,” Human Communication Research, Vol. 4, 1978, pp.

129–142.

Expectancy: Judee K. Burgoon and Beth A. LePoire, “Effects of Communication Expectancies,

Actual Communication and Expectancy Disconfi rmation on Evaluations of Communicators

and Their Communication Behavior,” Human Communication Research, Vol. 20,

1993, pp. 67–96.

Expectation and valence of touch: Judee K. Burgoon, Joseph Walther, and E. James

Baesler, “Interpretations, Evaluations, and Consequences of Touch,” Human Communication

Research, Vol. 19, 1992, pp. 237–263. www.afirstlook.com.

 INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION of David Buller & Judee Burgoon

Why people lying?  Every day we hear people’s lay.thier personal life and responsibility are full of cheating. Like government reports …the truth and reality make diiference.deceptive Communication senders attempt to manipulate messages so as to be untruthful, which may cause them apprehension concerning their false communication being detected.  Simultaneously, communication receivers try to unveil or detect the validity of that information, causing suspicion about whether or not the sender is being deceitful.suppose you man didn’t go some palce which is strictly for bidden?and you may go there your dade and ma asks you where are you waiten? You say in your  frinds house,cinma,…escape from the event which comes to decept others.
Communication is not static; it is influenced not only by one's own goals, but also by the context of the interaction as it unfolds. The sender's conduct and messages are affected by conduct and messages of the receiver, and vice versa. Furthermore, deception differs from truthful communication. Intentional deception requires significantly more cognitive resources than truthful communication, whether the sender engages in falsification (lying), concealment (omitting material facts), or equivocation (skirting issues by changing the subject or offering indirect responses). IDT explores the interrelation between communicative context and sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges.
Theorists: Buller and Burgoon, 1996 Sigmund Freud studied nonverbal cues to detect deception about a century ago. Freud observed a patient being asked about his darkest feelings. If his mouth was shut and his fingers were trembling, he was considered to be lying. In 1989, DePaulo and Kirkendol developed the Motivation Impairment Effect (MIE). MIE states the harder people try to deceive others; the more likely they are to get caught. Burgoon and Floyd, however, revisited this research and formed the idea that deceivers are more active in their attempt to deceive than most would anticipate or expect. Deception is message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the receiver. Falsification-deception strategy that creates a fiction.
Concealment-deception strategy that hides a secret.
Equivocation- deception strategy that dodge /cut/ the issue.
Leakage-unconscious nonverbal cues that signal an internal state.
Levelers-inclusive terms that shift personal responsibility to others by removing individual choice.
Modifiers-terms that shifts responsibility by downplaying the intensity of unwelcome news.
Truth bias-our persistent expectation that people will tell the truth.
Cognitive heuristic-a mental short cut used by pass the huge clutter of verbal and non verbal signals which bombard us throughout every conversation.
Othello error- an error that occurs when, in the context of a suspected deception, a truth teller’ adaptation to a false accusation strikes the respondent devious
IDT was developed by two communication professors, David B. Buller and Judee K. Burgoon. Prior to their study, deception had not been fully considered as a communication activity. Previous work had focused upon the formulation of principles of deception. These principles were derived by evaluating the lie detection ability of individuals observing unidirectional communication. These early studies found initially that "although humans are far from infallible in their efforts to diagnose lies, they are substantially better at the task than would result merely by chance." Buller and Burgoon discount the value of highly controlled studies – usually one-way communication experiments – designed to isolate unmistakable cues that people are laying. Therefore, IDT is based on two-way communication and intended to describe deception as an interactive communicative process.
Buller, D.B., and Burgoon, J.K. (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242. Individual Interpretations: There are three aspects of deceptive messages:

v  The central deceptive message, which is usually verbal.

v  Ancillary message, which includes both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication that often reveals the truthfulness of a particular message. 

v  Inadvertent behaviors which are mostly nonverbal and help to point out the deceit of the sender through a term called leakage.

As far as the nature of reality, Deception Theory is very humanistic in that it views multiple realities all contingent on the different situational factors on individuals involved. In terms of knowledge, this theory is also humanistic.  What is discovered from the research depends entirely on who is doing the knowing. The Interpersonal Deception Theory is humanistic in the sense of values.  Values of the individuals involved are concluded from their own values and experiences.
Critique:
Why people lying?  Fear of losing or need of wining, to get acceptance…but not our communication process acceptance the environment our world decishens.Money making sample but un original (similar to original) printed to create peoples for a commercialization purpose . I don't believe certainly is that gift to positive or negative interpretation of behavior. Deception is not is created in to three main part of communication; source/sender/, receiver and feedback or continues forum of communication. Ether the sender /source/ deceptive or the receiver understand and interperate deceptionally. Deception is defined as an untruthful message that a sender tells to a receiver. A deceiver is knowingly manipulating information, which is usually presented in a sincere way. The deceiver may be unconscious of this, but he/she, may not realize that they are practicing escape.
From the research I have found on this theory, I believe Interpersonal Deception Theory to be mostly a humanistic theory.  Besides the fact that it predicts that humans attempt to deceive /false, mislead/ and the receiver evaluates the communication behavior to determine the validity of the message, it has very little predictive power.  It cannot predict truthfulness in a specific instance between two specific people because such a unique event is contingent on so many things.  Contingencies include whether the deception was premeditated, if there was time available to plan, the consequences of being detected, and the anticipated success of escaping detection.  This theory mostly explains the different types of deceptive acts, motives for deception, and describes the factors that measure whether an attempt at deception will be a successful act. 
Interpersonal Deception is a useful theory for someone who has either attempted to deceive or thought someone was trying to deceive them.  It helps when looking back on a situation to evaluate the verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors to discover if someone has lied.  This theory is usually self-serving, but can also be used to maintain an interpersonal relationship.  Everyone has lied and everyone has been lied to, so Deception Theory is very useful and practical.
Interpersonal Deception Theory is a theory that describes deception that is used in conversation between two people. There are many variations of deception including falsification, concealment, and equivocation. Deception of personality is described In the Varity way, verbal and non verbal communication. Most people believe they can spot deception, but IDT holds that most cannot. There are a variety of things a deceiver must do simultaneously to ensure what they are saying comes across as true, most important of which is how the deceiver manages his or her verbal and nonverbal cues. According to IDT, the more socially aware a receiver is, the better he or she is at detecting deceit.
Emotion plays a central role in IDT, both as a motivator and a result of deception. Emotion can be a motivator of deception, as the sender relies on relevant knowledge – informational, relational, and behavioral familiarity in order to achieve goals such as self-gratification, avoiding or creating negative emotional outcome for the target of deception. Emotion can also be a result of deception, as a physical response occurs within the sender, usually in the form of arousal and negative effect. THE RESPONDENT'S DILEMMA: TRUTH BIAS OR SUSPICION? TRUE ---SUSPICION- FALSE. Emotion in deception is manifested most overtly in nonverbal signals. Some studies indicate over 90% of emotional meaning is communicated nonverbally. Fortunately, humans are highly sensitive to body signals. Often, communication is ambivalent: people communicate one thing verbally and the opposite nonverbally. Leakage refers to communicative incidents in which nonverbal signals betray the true content of contradictory verbal messages. Examples of leakage: Facial expression,anger, fear, sadness, joy, disgust, curiosity/interest, surprise andacceptance.  Gesture Touch can be a valuable means of reassurance and of demonstrating understanding. Humans touch one another to show sexual intimacy, affiliation and understanding; in greetings and farewells; as an act of aggression; and to emphasize dominance. Argyle writes that there "appear to be definite rules which permit certain kinds of touch, between certain people, on certain occasions only.

POLITICAL EXAGGERATIONS expose to deception.belive it or not the political leaders are not keeping their promise. Peoples need exaggeration there talk and action above to the action.  

Recommended resollrce: A_First_Look_at_Communication_Theory___8th_Edition_

David B. Buller and Judee K. Burgoon, "Interpersonal Deception Theory" Communication Theory, Vol. 6, 1996, pp. 203-242.

Judee K. Burgoon and David B. Buller, "Interpersonal Deception Theory," in Perspective on Persl/asion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining, John Seiter and Robert Gass (eds.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2003, pp. 239-264.

Judee K. Burgoon, David B. Buller, and Kory Floyd, "Does Participation Affect Deception Success?" Human Communication Research, Vol. 27,2001, pp. 503-534.

Coordinated Management of Meaning of W. Barnett Pearce & Vernon Cronen

The primary emphasis of CMM theory rests in the hands of looking at the communication process through a participatory view, outside participants can also recognize the construction of reality. Once a person develops awareness concerning communication interaction, they are able to see it in other interaction. Further, this knowledge can be applied to similar situations. CMM, therefore, sees each conversation as a complex interconnected series of events and each participant affects and is affected by the other.
In the late 1970's, W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen introduced their theory of CMM. Their primary findings indicated that talk creates the social environment in which we participate. Prior to Pearce and Cronen, the common method of observing communication was through a transmission view. This taught theorists and scholars to focus on the pieces of conversation while ignoring the overall effect of the interaction. CMM theory examines interactions from a participant’s point of view, and is able to get a feel for the interaction as a whole through this process. Outside observation does lead to learning about the interaction, but participating in the interaction leads to more in depth study of communication patterns.
CMM theory relies on three basic processes in interactions.

·         A participant consciously or unconsciously experiences coherence,

·         coordination,

·         and mystery

Each step further clarifies and explains how we create social realities when we engage in conversation. The first step, coherence, describes how meaning is achieved in conversation. Each time we enter into dialogue, we have expectations for that new situation. We can still recognize, however, that all interactions are unique and we are able to adjust to new experiences. Constitutive rules are another term to identify the "rules" for interactions. We use constitutive rules to interpret behavior and attempt to make sense of what is going on in our conversations.
Pearce and Cronen noted that each story we tell (another way to discuss the concept of coherence) will hold different interpretations depending on several factors including: episode, relationship, self-concept, and culture. Each element helps us to understand and relate what happens in each interaction. An episode is thought of as the specific "rules" or "routine" for each interaction we engage in. The relationship between the persons in conversation also determines how a speech act might be interpreted. A story told to a friend might be completely different that the exact same instance explained to a stranger. Self-concept relies not only on how the people in interaction perceive themselves, but also the type of environment they create for the other participant. Culture also plays a very important part in the stories we tell. Our culture, the culture of others can affect the role of communication interaction.
Coordination this concept recognizes that each person has a set of rules that govern their behavior. These rules influence how individuals accent the qualities we want others to see. Each person operates from their own set of rules, but they can be coordinated to coincide with others. Regulative rules are the guides that we use to guide our actions and aid in coordination. Coordination occurs when in a particular interaction we move from sense making and try to live. Finally, another process for persons in conversation is the concept of mystery, or stories unexpressed. This concept describes anything in a communication interaction that is altogether unexplainable. It is the feeling or strong attraction, hate, or of "clicking." These experiences, although unexpressed, directly contribute to the interaction and the way we create our social environment. In using coherence, coordination, and mystery, we create the basis for our social interactions. Whenever we, as humans, interact, we see and make sense of the interaction through our talk.
When meeting a boyfriend or girl friend's parents for the first time, there are many expectations presented in the new communication event. CMM's concept of coherence can help us to make sense of the situation. We have past experience that relates and contributes to our expectations of this initial introduction. We have met other parents, other adults, other significant other's parents. We understand the role of small talk in conversation, as well as pleasantries involved in new introductions. Combined with past experience, we hold current expectations for the interaction. We want to make a good impression, act polite and not offend anyone. We also expect that they are somewhat "normal" people, but if they aren't we can adjust to the situation. 
Suggestion

“Communication is about meaning... but not just in a passive sense of perceiving messages. Rather, we live in lives filled with meanings and one of our life challenges is to manage those meanings so that we can make our social worlds coherent and live within them with honor and respect. But this process of managing our meanings is never done in isolation. We are always and necessarily coordinating the way we manage our meanings with other people. So, I concluded, communication is about the coordinated management of meaning.

A new understanding of people is reached in two areas. First, it views communication from a participant view. This allows communication to create meaning and serve a function other than just transmitting information. Our language, words, and rules do not simply serve the function of relaying information, but to bring understanding and reality to our lives. Secondly, CMM recognizes that our talk is the primary socialization process of human life. We can better understand ourselves and others interactions by realizing that what we say and how we say it constantly creates our perceptions of a social world.
In looking at communication this way, CMM is able to help clarify the values of humans. Instead of focusing on the "why" of communication, the humanistic approach focuses on the meaning and "how" behind the interactions. In using coherence, coordination, and mystery in communication interactions, we realize that how we act are assumptions of how we perceive others. Our set of assumptions may be completely different than those of another person. CMM theory exemplifies the notion that even if two people do not see things from the same point of view, communication can still be successful. This success is important primarily because the two parties can arrive at a point of interaction in which they know they are coming from different sides, but they can still find an outcome to suit both of their needs.
Aesthetic appeal is realized by looking at old material in a new way. Instead of the traditional transmission view of communication, CMM looks at interactions and the meanings we create. This makes what we do and not "is" what we do. Many theorists agree with the notion of CMM theory, providing a definite community of agreement. It questions the values of the transmission model and provides an alternate way to look at communication.
CMM theory promotes reform in because it examines the way we see communication. When we realize that our social world is constructed and our conversations, we can better understand how to react when misunderstandings occur. Instead of fighting about details, CMM theory promotes explaining viewpoints to reach understanding. To further examine the way we see communication is proof in the theory itself. Pearce and Cronen are continually changing and adjusting terms and concepts for the theory. This redefines the very nature of the theory. The fact that we are continually creating our social environments is proof in the adjustments in the theory by the theorists.
Although CMM theory does hold when evaluated by humanistic standards, it does have several areas in which its limitations are noticeable. The first is its use of too many terms. The initial reading of this theory provided extreme difficulty for me. When held to the scientific standards for evaluating theories, CMM theory falls short in several areas. To begin, the data of CMM theory is never truly explained. As previously mentioned, the vocabulary varies from writing to writing. Also, CMM theory has trouble focusing on exactly what is important in the interaction and has trouble pinpointing exactly what is crucial in communication interaction.
CMM theory also falls short of scientific standards when attempting to predict future events. CMM theory focuses on the "now" or how we create our social environments. It neglects to predict how the theory can affect future events, or even what will happen in future communication situations. It looks primarily at what happens when we enter a new communication interaction, and explains the process of creating our own social world through our talking, but it neglects to foretell what could happen or why

Above all, Coordinated Meaning of Management is a useful theory when examining communication interactions. It focuses its central themes on the ritual of communication and the part it plays in defining our world. Unfortunately, CMM has an abundance of terms to relay the same basic message. Aside from the terminology, CMM provides a different scope to view real life situations, even one as stressful as meeting a boyfriend or girlfriend's parents!

Recommended resource: A_First_Look_at_Communication_Theory___8th_Edition_

 W. Barnett Pearce, Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective  Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2008.

: W. Barnett Pearce, “The Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM),” in Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, William Gudykunst (ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004, pp. 35–54.

W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon E. Cronen, Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of Social Realities, Praeger, New York, 1980; also www. cios.org/www/opentext.htm .

Social Penetration Theory of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor

‘How they were able to compare people to onions?’

 ‘How closeness is born out of self-disclosure?’

Social Penetration theory really is Personality Structure – it refers to the nature and/or basic description of human personality. In the general level, this structure is common to many if not most of the individual persons. This is even reaffirmed in the views of Altman and Taylor. Self-Disclosure - it refers to the gradual process of unfolding ones’ inner self. This process, in the writings of Altman and Taylor, is possible only after an established intimacy and closeness. It is quite difficult for a person to divulge all his/her secrets to another person he barely knows. And it is nearly impossible for a person to disclose the innermost layers of his/her self. Social Penetration Theory – this theory refers to the interpersonal relationship that is dependent on the gradual self-disclosure of one person to another person through their intimacy and closeness. It presupposes that people are like onions having multiple layers. One person tries to penetrate every layer till he reaches the very core of another person’s self. Personality Structure: A Multi-Layered Onion Altman and Taylor liken individuals to onions. The reason for this comparison is the fact that both the onion and the person do have multi-layers. In the case of the onion, it has multiple layers surrounding its core. Likewise, individuals do have multi-layered nature of personality. This simply means that what one can superficially perceive about another person may not entirely be its real self. There are several layers before one could penetrate another’s inner self. Altman and Taylor illustrate these layers. First layer is labeled as the superficial area of identification which is being composed of the following: preference in music, clothes, foods, etc. the next is the semi-private layer which includes the attitude that a person reveals only to some people. These people are perhaps close to him/her. The inner core is made up of one person’s values, self-concepts, unresolved conflicts and deeply felt emotions. This is the unique private domain which is invisible to the world but has a significant impact on the areas of one person’s life.

 Closeness through Self-Disclosure Closeness and intimacy between individuals become possible only through self-disclosure. Talks about deep secrets and thoughts between two persons in a manner of reciprocity result to closeness and intimacy. This is where Social Penetration Theory of Altman and Taylor become applicable. How? The depth of penetration represents the degree of personal disclosure.

The social penetration theory states that as relationships develop, communication moves from relatively shallow, no intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones. Social penetration theory was formulated by psychology professors Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor as their attempt to describe the dynamics of relational closeness. They proposed that closeness occurs through a gradual process of self-disclosure, and closeness 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.  This psychological theory, as with many others, is applied in the context of interpersonal relationships such as communications. It can also be defined as the process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability.
Self-disclosure is the voluntary sharing of history, preferences, attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc., with another person; transparency. Self-disclosure is the act of revealing more about ourselves, on both a conscious and an unconscious level. Altman and Taylor believe that only through opening one's self to the main route to social penetration - self-disclosure - by becoming vulnerable to another person can a close relationship develop. Vulnerability can be expressed in a variety of ways, including the giving of anything which is considered to be a personal possession, such as a dresser drawer given to a partner. First of all, Social penetration is perhaps best known for its onion analogy. Self-disclosure is referred to in terms of breadth and depth, the latter of which is described in units of layers. This analogy is used to describe the multilayered nature of personality. When one peels the outer skin from an onion, another skin is uncovered. When the second layer is removed, a third is exposed, and so forth.The outer layer of personality contains the public self, which is accessible to anyone who wants to look. The public self layer has a myriad of details which help to describe who one is, such as height, weight, gender, and other public information which takes little questioning to discover. Below the surface layer, however, the personality holds more private information like beliefs, faith, prejudices, and general relationship information. Held within the inner core are values, self-concept, and deep emotions. The inner core is the unique private domain of individuals, which, although invisible to the rest of the world, has a profound impact on the areas of life which lie closer to the surface. The amount revealed can vary according to culture. Self disclosure is reciprocal/given by each side/in return/ especially in the early stages of relationship development.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. When the relationship starts to break down and costs exceed benefits, then there is a withdrawal of disclosure which leads to termination of the relationship.Rewards and costs- Social Penetration Theory states that humans, even without thinking about it, weigh each relationship and interaction with another human on a reward cost scale. If the interaction was satisfactory, then that person or relationship is looked upon favorably. But if an interaction was unsatisfactory, then the relationship will be evaluated for its costs compared to its rewards or benefits. People try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place. Coming from a scientific standpoint,

Suggestion

my stand on the view in the theory is never find a finishing line of life just like a book returns one chapter in different contents and sub content through communication. the back page of life may it will tell us now is death of the  grave. Even it may alive on the eternal work of above his/her name through communication.  It is not measure personal relationships between inter personal relationships. Friendships to excite for effective self disclose it is necessary evaluate level of standard ;

·         Education

·         Economic class

·         Race

·         Ethnicity

·         Language …makes a close relationship and a divorce case of life.  Am frightened social consideration culture openness and cloosedness.let us take an example social values  the harer people and bahir dar people,the harer peoples are more easy to communicative and transparent but come to bahir dar people they are never easily open themselves. Even though they are need more time to study and discussion and affordability of assurance.

I observe that more communicative and supportive each other. Problem solver, innovator, cratevater, social thinker. Social Penetration Theory asserts that as relationships develop person’s communication from superficial to deeply personal topics, slowing penetrating the communicators' public persona to reach their core personality or sense of self. First viewed as a direct, continuous penetration from public person to private person, social penetration is knows considered to be a cyclical and dialectical. Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better where the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.

I agree with them scholars Persons allow other people to penetrate their public self when they disclose personal information. The decision to disclose is based on the perceived rewards the person will gain if he or she discloses information. If a person perceives that the cost of disclosing information is greater than the rewards for disclosing information then no information will be disclosed. The larger the reward - cost ratio the more disclosure takes place.

If you think to the relationships you have been in you will probably find that in almost all of them more disclosure took place at the outset of the relationship than at any other place. That happens because people initially disclose superficial information that costs very little if another person finds it out. It matters little if you know that I enjoy all types’ sports but especially enjoy playing to foot ball, running, and basket ball. It gets a bit more personal when I start explaining why I like those types of sports, so I, like most people, will wait until you reciprocate and tell me your favorite types of sport before I allow you more visibility into who I am.

The deeper I allow you to penetrate myself, the more affective information I will disclose to you. The closer you get to my core self the higher my perceived costs will be for disclosing that information. Thus, it is not likely that I will disclose very personal information to very many people.

Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. It cannot every relationships argue that the information reveal any chance to easiest to done. Am arguing that every person is disclosing himself for everyone that intimacy stapes. Human being is a moveable library. No one study and finish it, even his age itself a collage packed so many things collected his/her life.

Its logic is not necessarily logical in that the authors propose a linear model, but this may not be the best way to explain the theory.  It has spawned much of the work in interpersonal context because of the fundamental principles it lays down about interpersonal relationships. Social Penetration Theory does explain the behaviors that people experience when forming a relationship. But never chose one an alternative chance of circumstances uploaded on flow to friendship like cost effectiveness and marginal behavior of their background difference.
My stand about the theory secrets is more cognitive than self disclosing because peoples easily know you. Never telling any more about him. I believe that peoples are like ocean you tell something about him/her. You never know any one as this, he /she never say itself discloses  necessary to limit as actualities of frindiship.the more you  know, the more neglecting is another problem for social peneteration.specialy in the closed culture basic like Ethiopia. Social penetrations define by time. When stay more time arrive detail. Someone who share dining table also more share information. Similar with take cups at night are more favorable.

Social status is one boundary of the theory the shepherd man never communicate with someone elite or his lords/madam. Class of society it forums with even the theory come to practice in one way.knwlage, economy, proffisshen ,class....status are big role in the theory. Toleration of communication feeds for a long relationship.

Recommended resource: Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships, Holt, New York, 1973.

Altman’s reflective research summary: Irwin Altman, “Toward a Transactional Perspective: A Personal Journey,” in Environment and Behavior Studies: Emergence of Intellectual Traditions: Advances in Theory and Research, Vol. 11, Human Behavior and Environment, Environment and Behavior Studies, Irwin Altman and Kathleen Christensen (eds.), Plenum, New York, 1990, pp. 225–255.

Later developments: Dalmas Taylor and Irwin Altman, “Communication in Interpersonal Relationships: Social Penetration Processes,” in Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, Michael Roloff and Gerald Miller (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987, pp. 257–277. www.afirstlook.com.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory– Charles R. Burger

Initial interactions between strangers are characterized by information seeking in order to reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty is reduced as levels of self-disclosure, nonverbal warmth, and similarity increase. Is that uncertainty headache of interpersonal communication?

When people interact, they will act to reduce the uncertainty about the other person, seeking ways to predict their behavior. This is particularly true when they first meet and they do not know one another. The most common way of reducing uncertainty is via information-seeking, questioning the other person, for example about their background. We start with the opening small-talk before moving on to the meat of the conversation. Other approaches are to find out indirectly about the person (e.g. by asking a friend) or to passively observe them.

E.g. Upon meeting someone who sits next to you in a class, you begin to ask questions about that person in order to reduce uncertainty. Chances are high that they will reciprocate and seek to reduce uncertainty as well. Uncertainty reduction Increased knowledge of what kind of person another is, which provides an improved forecast of how a future interaction will turn out.

Berger, a professor of communication at the University of California, Davis, notes that “the beginnings of personal relationships are fraught with uncertainties.”  Unlike social penetration theory, which tries to forecast the future of a relationship on the basis of projected rewards and costs, Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory (URT) focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding. Central to the present theory is the assumption that when strangers meet, their primary concern is one of uncertainty reduction or increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction.

Interpersonal ignorance is not bliss; it’s frustrating! Berger contends that our drive to reduce uncertainty about new acquaintances gets a boost from any of three prior conditions:

1. Anticipation of future interaction: We know we will see them again.

2. Incentive value: They have something we want.

3. Deviance: They act in a weird way.

Heather hooks you on all three counts. You know you’re going to be dealing with her for the next few weeks; she can make you or break you financially.

The process of using communication to gather information about someone to improve your ability to explain and predict their behavior.

Eight axioms describe how uncertainty relates to other variables.

Here are Berger’s eight truths about initial uncertainty.

Axiom 1, Verbal Communication: Given the high level of uncertainty present at the onset of the entry phase, as the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty for each interactant in the relationship will decrease. As uncertainty is further reduced, the amount of verbal communication will increase.

Axiom 2, Nonverbal Warmth: As nonverbal affinitive expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease in an initial interaction situation. In addition, decreases in uncertainty level will cause increases in nonverbal affinitive expressiveness.

Axiom 4, Self-Disclosure: High levels of uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy.

Axiom 3, Information Seeking: High levels of uncertainty cause increases in Information seeking behavior. As uncertainty levels decline, information-seeking Behavior decreases.

Axiom 4, Self-Disclosure: High levels of uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy.

Axiom 5, Reciprocity: High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity.

Axiom 6, Similarity: Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities produce increases in uncertainty.

Axiom 7, Liking: Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking; decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking.

Axiom 8, Shared Networks: Shared communication networks reduce uncertainty, while lack of shared networks increases uncertainty. Berger (1987)

basically, the critics find fault in two areas of the theory: the assumptions and its validity.Some researchers believe that the major assumptions of the theory are flawed. Michael Sunnafrank (1986) argues that reducing uncertainty about the self and another in an initial encounter is not an individual's primary concern. Instead, Sunnafrank argues, "a more primary goal is the maximization of relational outcomes" (p. 9). Sunnafrank calls for a reformulation of URT that takes into account the importance of predicted outcomes during initial interactions.

The second area of criticism of URT has to do with its validity. Recall that even Berger (1987) has admitted some validity problems. Yet, he is not willing to give up on the theory. Some of his more skeptical colleagues, however, assert that given the tight logical structure of an axiomatic theory, if one building block is wrong, then much of the resulting theory is suspect. Kathy Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990) point to Axiom 3, which suggests that high uncertainty causes high levels of information-seeking behavior, as problematic.
Their study of over a thousand students failed to find support for the third axiom. Instead, they found that "wanting knowledge rather than lacking knowledge is what promotes information-seeking in initial encounters with others" (p. 71). Despite these shortcomings, Uncertainty Reduction Theory remains the only communication theory to specifically examine initial interactions. Incorporating our criteria for theory evaluation, this theory is, first, highly heuristic. For instance, URT has been integrated into research examining small groups (Booth-Butterfield, Booth-Butterfield, & Koester, 1988) as well as research in mass communication (Dimmick, Sikand, & Patterson, 1994) and computer-mediated communication (Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Finally, URT can be considered to be tentative in that the theorists originally claimed that "there are other relevant constructs which might be explicitly incorporated into the model" (Berger & Calabrese, 1975, p. 111). Obviously, the writers were qualifying their original assumptions and conclusions, which paved the way for others to apply the theory variously.

Suggestion and point of views

Uncertainty is the beginning of knowledge for certainty. Peoples in the internal communication found themselves things began to suspend others in our world no one exposes himself/herself. Example; we are gone to our religious society, without any doubt almighty god hear and give he our wants to be sure and make a pray. Or we never erect of land are immediately crake down and sink it we certainly assure that our life. Our mothers give food but us never consequent her mama poisoned the food.i agree with scholars view:

Weaknesses

ü  Complex: 28 theorems is not parsimonious /cost effective/.

ü  Fails to predict reliably

ü  Conclusions appear mundane (Eidenmuller)

Strengths

• Explanatory Power
• Practical utility: suggestions to negotiate first encounters.
• Heuristic: Interesting theory has led to a lot of research and new theories.

Reference

§  Joinson, Adam. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behavior. Palgrave Macmillan.

§  Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

§  Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Social Information Processing Theory/SIPT/ of Joseph Walther

CMC Computer-mediated communication; text based messages, which filter out most nonverbal cues.

This theory is almost a perfect description of how my fiancée and I met the second time. Although we did go to middle school together, we barely talked when we were there, and neither of us knew anything about the other person. We also did not talk for three and a half years after leaving middle school, but one day we started to talk on the Internet. Once the ice was broken, we started to find out that we had many things in common and soon we were waiting to see each other sign on line every day. As time went on, we began to trust each other with secrets that we would not have told even our closest of friends. This made it so that when we did meet, we were able to carry on a conversation without experiencing the awkwardness that usually happens on a first date. Even though we were not getting together with the initial intention of becoming a couple, we already knew so much about each other that we were able to connect on a level that I have never experienced before with any relationship. For some reason, the talk over the Internet made me feel as if I had a stronger relationship with her than I did with some of my friends who I physically saw every day. William Jordan, Yahoo! Contributor Network Jan 18, 2009

SIPT explicitly assumes that individuals are motivated to form impressions and develop relationships of some kind, no matter what medium theory are using /p.394/. Walter,joseph B .,leslie A Baxter,and dawn O braithewaite social information processing theory of computer mediated communication with special focus on the development of relationships online. The SIPT of CMC explains how people get to know one another online, without non verbal cues and how they develop and manage relationships in the computer – mediated environment (walter, 1992, p391). Because the relationships he discusses are largely based on textual interaction this work is not directly relevant to my research on online video conversation.however, it is not without relevance and worth. In face to  face communication the concurrent exchange of verbal messages along with appearance, kinesics(body movement and facial expression),vocalic(quality along with appearance, kinesics(body movement and facial expression)and haptics (TOUCH) provide an abundance of information all at once. the various cues do not always duplicate one another in terms of meaning; the compliment,contradict,accentuate,or minimize verbal cues and other non verbal expression(395-396)

If one or more of these elements is removed, we expect that less is getting communicated through the remaining modes, so they must work a bit harder to convey the message and are therefore slower and slower considering further the conditions of asynchronous communication and the fact that in many cases, such as with email, each response or exchange can take hours or even days to occur, one can see that relationship development can take ever longer. “Thus when communication goes slowly, relationships accrue slowly….” (397)

To place the online video conversation (OVC) in this structure, we can see that relationship development would likely occur much faster than with purely textual communication, yet not as fast as that face to face the OVC includes most, or all, of the nonverbal cues presenting face to face (lacking true proximity and haptics); however, it is asynchronous and therefore the rate of exchange can take longer. it is also worth nothing that while the number of exchanges is likely few than in face to face communication the OVC exchange are longer since participants have the opportunity and perhaps the need to fit more in to each exchange, and they are in some ways more meaningful, since participants have the ability to review exchange, and they are in some ways more meaningful, since participants have the ability to review exchanges. As walther reference,

The Social Information Processing Model of perception describes four processing stages that include

1. Selective attention and comprehension,

2. Encoding and simplification,

3. Storage and retention,

4. And retrieval and response.

Selective attention and comprehension In the first stage, the person becomes  aware of something or someone based on stimuli factors that might include the size,  intensity, novelty, and repetition of the stimuli, or the degree the stimuli is salient to their  needs.  Encoding and simplification is how different people interpret environmental stimuli differently based on previously developed cognitive categories and schema/plan/. 

Cognitive categories help us classify, simplify, and distinguish among objects, while schemata are cognitive scripts that provide general ideas about situations.  Storage and retention refer to encoding information into the three compartments of long-term memory.  Retrieval and response, is the retrieval of information from memory to make judgments and decisions about situations. 

Suggestion

Today every marriage and relationship continues through advance technology computer. The main loosening of the theory; non verbal cues, facial expression, gesture it is online textual communication. Technology role not only crate globalization but also plays in wide role in the interpersonal communication. Technology by itself created peoples opportunities lay for things.

It is a symbolical interaction and technological advancement barriers in the look up personal communication.

Peoples share any different point of views in the different perspectives assure to communication is wide but a barrier of communication gap is created on the business globalized world unfair distribution and technological use of advancement. It necessary to be literate use the technology is a limitation once. The communication of multi dimensional technology system creates anew world The changes that resulted in the information age and continue to have a pervasive effect on the study of communication. The term “information age” refers to the fact that information and communication technology have come to have an influence on virtually every facet of the personal and occupational lives of individuals. These many technological developments have had a huge effect on human communication practice and on communication study. Interest in communication, technology, and communication media has become common among a wide range of scholars, and the study of communication has become the study of message-related behavior. Communication study focuses on the ways in which individuals process information in order to adapt and influence, and in these endeavors, communication technology plays an ever-more central role. Where interpersonal communication was once thought of almost exclusively in terms of face-to-face communication, many who study this topic are now also interested in the role played by communication that is mediated by things such as the telephone, answering machines, and e-mail.

Group communication studies may include studies of groups that exist electronically—“virtually”— as well as physically. The electronic group environments include Internet chat rooms and teleconference settings. The more traditional emphasis on the use of mass media, such as network television, radio, and newspapers, has now been expanded to give consideration to cable television, cell telephones, videocassette recorder usage, and the Internet.

Recommended resource: A_First_Look_at_Communication_Theory___8th_Edition_

 Joseph B. Walther, “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective,” Communication Research, Vol. 19, 1992, pp. 52–90.

Joseph B. Walther, “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction,” Communication Research, Vol. 23, 1996, pp. 3–43.

Joseph B. Walther, “Social Information Processing Theory: Impressions and Relationship Development Online,” in Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008, pp. 391–404.

Griffin,Em. A First Look at Communication Theory.

New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc.,1997.

Relational Dialectics Theory Leslie Baxter &Barbara Montgomery

Relational dialectics A dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies. Internal dialectics Ongoing tensions played out within a relationship. External dialectics Ongoing tensions between a couple and their community. Dialectical process thinking adds a great deal to our conceptual frameworks about relational life. First, we can think specifically about issues around which relational partners construct meaning. Second, we can remove the static frame and put our emphasis on the interplay between change and stability. We do not have to choose between observing patterns and observing unpredictability because we recognize the presence of both within relationships. Likewise, dialectical thinking directs people to observe the interactions within a relationship, among its individual members, as well as outside a relationship, as its members interact with the larger social and cultural systems in which they are embedded. This approach helps us focus on power issues and multicultural diversity.

Baxter and Montgomery (1996) observe that dialectics is not a traditional theory in that it offers no axioms or propositional arguments. Instead, it describes a set of conceptual assumptions. Thus, it does not offer us good predictions about, for example, what coping strategies people might use to deal with the major dialectic tensions in their relationships. This problem may be the result of the relative youth of dialectics as a theoretical frame for relational life, or it may result from differing goals: Traditional theory seeks prediction and final statements about communication phenomena; Dialectics operates from an open-ended, ongoing viewpoint. Baxter and Montgomery end their 1996 book with a personal dialogue between themselves about the experience of writing about a theory that encourages conversation rather than providing axiomatic conclusions. They agree that in some ways it is difficult to shake the cultural need for consistency and closure. Yet, they conclude that it is heuristic and valuable to write about live, emerging ideas.

Many researchers agree that the dialectic approach is an extremely exciting way to conceive of communication in relational life. Expect to see more refinements of this theory and more studies testing its premises.

The Relational Dialectic is an elaboration on Mikhail Baxter’s idea that life is an open monologue and humans experience collisions between opposing desires and needs within relational communications. Baxter includes a list of Dialectical Tensions that reminds us that relationships are constantly changing and successful and satisfying relationships require constant attention. Although Baxter’s description of Relational Dialectics is thorough, it by no means is exact or all inclusive since us all experience different tensions in different ways. Defines;

1. tension between conflicting ideas: the tension that exists between two conflicting or interacting forces, elements, or ideas 2. investigation of truth through discussion: the investigation of the truth through discussion, or the art of investigating truths through discussion 3. di·a·lec·tics debate resolving conflict: debate intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or apparently contradictory ideas or parts logically, establishing truths on both sides rather than disproving one argument 4. Hegelian process: the process, in Hegelian and Marxist thought, in which two apparently opposed ideas, the thesis and antithesis, become combined in a unified whole, the synthesis . Socratic method for revealing truth: the methods used in Socratic philosophy to reveal truth through disputation. There are three approaches, namely:  1. Monologist Approach -That is an approach looked at the relation of contradiction That Framed one of conflict. 2. Dualistic approach-That is an approach saw a contradiction separately 3. Dialectical approach-That is a viewpoint maintains two polar opposites. Assumptions: There are four basic assumptions in RDT Assessing relational life. Among Them: 1. Relationships are not linear. Relationships in the RDT viewed as a relationship consisting of fluctuation Between Desires contradictory, and note the parts That are linear. 2. Characterized by the existence of associated life changes. According to Baxter and Montgomery's view, the process or change a relationship refers to the qualitative and quantitative movement over time and the contradictions occur in living related That. One's relationship right now, with A Few months ago Experienced That the changes are not linear. 3. Contradiction is a fundamental fact of life related. That assumes RDT contradictions are an inevitable fact of life related. RDT so it wants to maintain the existing contradictions in life and trying to reconcile related. 4. Communication is very Important in Managing and Negotiating the contradictions in the relationship. In the show a contradiction, one needs to Communicate. Social reality of the contradictions Produced and reproduced by the communication action by social actors. Communication Can be verbal and non-verbal. Dialectics has Which Some basic elements of the dialectical perspective, Which Are Mutation a. Totality-Between interdependence Totality To benefit the people in a relationship. In this case people needed and an interdependent relationship with Each other. If there is a change in Someone, it will from have an impact on others. b. Contradiction (Contradiction)-The main Characteristic of dialectic approach refers to the mutually contradictory oppositions (contradict). This is the main feature dialectic approach. c. Movement (motion)-Refers to the process of a relationship over time. Movement refers to the nature of the proceedings in a relationship. D. Praxis (praxis)-Man Is the decision maker, although not entirely a free choice. In other words, praxis refers to the human capacity to choose. Contextual Dialectic These relationships are emerging from within the culture. Dialectic Contextual consists of two kinds: a. Public and private Dialectic-contextual dialectic is generated from personal relationships and public life. b. Dialectic real and ideal-Is contextual dialectic resulting from differences in the Relationship Between the ideal and real relationships in life. Response to Relational Dialectic Theory This section studies how individuals Cope with the due-existing retail contradict contradictions relate is life. According to Jameson (2004) politeness is one way to resolve the dialectical tension. While Baxter (1988) Identified four strategies to address the dialectical tensions; cyclical substitution, segmentation, selection, and integration Substitution of cyclic (Cyclic alternation)-Occurs when people choose one of two Opposite Things at certain times, and replaced by another star at another time. Is so with cyclical turns in response to dialectical tensions That refers to changes over time. Segmentation (segmentation)-Separating the arena to reduce the difference of the two contradict Things Each other. Segmentation refers to the changes a result of a context. Selection (selection)-Give a decision against two Things Which contradict Each other. Selection refers on giving priority to the existing oppositions. Integration (Integration)-Involves the synthesis of the two Things That opposite. The integration consists of: Neutralize (neutralizing)-Individual try this way to select one of the best among the two polar contradict Each other. This response refers in Compromise to the two opposition Repeat frame (re framing) -In this way individuals attempt to transform the existing will of dialectic certain way, making it the second opposition seemed not contradict Each other again conflicting.Disqualify (Disqualifying) -Response was trying to neutralize dialectic by giving exemptions on Some issues from the general pattern.

Dialectics          

According to the original relational dialectic model, there were many core tensions (opposing values) in any relationship these were:
Autonomy and Connectedness: The desire to have ties and connections with others versus the need to separate yourself as a unique individual.

Example: As an athlete, wanting to feel a part of a team but also wanting to highlight your individual talents.

Favoritism and Impartiality: The desire to be treated fairly and impartially versus the desire to be seen and known as “special”.

Example: As a professor, creating an attendance policy but making exceptions for students who participate in class and have good grades.

Openness and Closeness: The desire to be open and divulge information versus the desire to be exclusive and private.

Example: Chatting with your boss about your weekend, but being sure to leave out certain details.

Novelty and Predictability: The desire for the relationship to be predictable versus the desire for it to be original and new.

Example: Relying on a fixed schedule for board meeting, but needing variations in the meeting itinerary to keep you interested and inspired.

Instrumentality and Affection: The desire for affection to be genuine versus the desire for affection to be motivated by benefits and perceived advantages of the relationship.

Example: Being in a romantic relationship based on love and affection, but maintaining it for benefits such as financial security.

Equality and Inequality: The desire to be considered as equals versus the desire to develop levels of superiority.

Example: As a female in the military, wanting treatment equivalent to that received by their male coworkers, but requiring special barracks and adjusted assignments.

According to the theory, while most of us may embrace the ideals of closeness, certainty, and openness in our relationships, the communication is not a straight path towards these goals. Conflicts often produce the exact opposites.
Suggestion 

Tension rise from different point of ideology and background, belief, and personal perspectives. It is a humankind come to know and makes an agreement or disagreement is a communication one aspect of being in life. Communication parties experience internal, conflicting pulls causing relationships to be in a constant state of flux, known as dialectical tension.  The pressures of these tensions occur in a wavelike or cyclical fashion over time.  Relational Dialectics introduces the concept that the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart.

Dialectical process thinking adds a great deal to our conceptual frameworks about relational life. First, we can think specifically about issues around which relational partners construct meaning. Second, we can remove the static frame and put our emphasis on the interplay between change and stability. We do not have to choose between observing patterns and observing unpredictability because we recognize the presence of both within relationships. Likewise, dialectical thinking directs people to observe the interactions within a relationship, among its individual members, as well as outside a relationship, as its members interact with the larger social and cultural systems in which they are embedded. This approach helps us focus on power issues and multicultural diversity.

These studies also point to the fact that the theory is testable. Perhaps the most positive appeal of the theory is that it seems to explain the push and pull people experience in relationships much better than some of the other, more linear, theories of relational life. Most people experience their relationships in ebb-and-flow patterns, whether the issue is intimacy, self-disclosure, or something else. That is, relationships do not simply become more or less of something in a linear, straight-line pattern. Instead, they often seem to be both/and as we live through them. Dialectics offers a compelling explanation for this both/and feeling.

I find the Relational Dialectics theory to have many strengths and good attributes that have helped me in some of my own relationships. First of all, understanding each of the tensions involved in this theory helps to understand the relationship as a whole. It has been beneficial to understand that these tensions exist in all relationships, and they are normal, and constructed by communication itself.  After learning about all of the different dialects like Autonomy and Connection, I realized that my relationships do have some of these tensions, especially with my husband. Almost all of the tensions I have found to exist in all of my relationships in both the internal and external categories. I feel that these tension are important to recognize and understand, and being aware of them helps us to better our communication in each of our relationships. The other day as my husband and I were discussing plans for a vacation, we started getting into an argument. I wanted to just take off, not plan were we were going to start or what we were going to do, I wanted to leave spontaneously on a little adventure and not worry about having any predictability. My husband on the other hand, felt it was necessary to have every bit of predictability and plan every detail out. He was being so BORING!  I quickly realized we were standing at opposite ends of the continuum. This made me change the way that I had been communicating previously. I found this theory to have practical use, as it did in this example. For me, this theory has been simple and clear, and I definitely can see that the parts and details of the theory do happen. My mother and I sometimes have small problems because she is not open at all; she is very private about how she feels, while I expect her to be open with me. This is another example where I have seen this theory working in my life and I have been able to understand it’s not just my mother, but her communication and relationship maintenance may differ from mine. The different management strategies that the theory teaches us, I have found to be true and helpful when trying to think of a way to deal with our opposing needs.

As far as this theory being 100% accurate, I don’t think it is. I don’t agree with all the premises in this theory either, for example, one of the premises of this theory is that relationships are constantly changing and I think relationships do change, but they are not always changing and moving in a spiral. This theory mentions that relationships are not linear; they don’t just move forward, they are always in a flux. It feels to me like they do move in a linear form for at least a period of time, then they go through changes, then they move forward in a spiral, then it is linear again for a period of time. I am still trying to understand this particular part of the theory, it is not clear to me. I have brought up this interesting point to my husband. We both feel that our relationship has always moved forward! We may have gotten in arguments, and had problems along the way, but to us that is still moving forward because we learned from them and we were prepared for them to come in the future. That was more of a permanent factor in our relationship, we knew and expected each other to have different wants, views, needs, etc. The fact that we accepted that made that factor a permanent thing that would exist in our relationship and it helped us see it as more stable rather than it will always be changing.

As far as our different wants and needs always changing, that fact itself won’t ever change. We know that our wants and needs will change because that is the way our relationship is, and the way all relationships are and have been from the beginning of time, therefore they have not really changed. We have predictability of things that will happen in relationships, again aiding them to be more stable and manageable. Researchers have argued that is impossible for a relationship to reach a certain level of satisfaction. I think after having managed and maintained our relationships through many contradictions and opposing needs, we become more and more satisfied with our relationships and learn how to manage them even more effectively, each day gaining more and more satisfaction. Of course this depends on the commitment of the individuals in the relationship, but I believe it is certainly possible to achieve any level of satisfaction. Relationships are what you make them. Each contradiction that partners may have can be used to better understand each other, and better predict the relationship. Overall, the theory is mostly true and clear. The part of theory that seeks to explain how relationships move forward in a spiral and they transform reality is a difficult and complex idea to grasp. Yet relationships in general are sometimes difficult to grasp and get the hang of being able to sustain it, but it is defiantly possible and I believe depending on the partner’s efforts and commitment you can reach even the highest level of satisfaction possible.

Reference:      Montgomery, B.M. & Baxter, L.A. (1998). Dialectical Approaches to Studying Personal Relationships.
      Baxter, L.A.& Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialects. 
In Hirokawa, R.Y. & Poole, M.S. (1996). Communication and Group Decision Making.
Location in Eight (8) Primary Communication Theory Textbooks:
     Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.  N/A
     Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 215-218.
     Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 163-174.

The Interactional View – Paul Waltzawick

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect. A closely related term is interconnectivity, which deals with the interactions of interactions within systems: combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena. Interaction has different tailored meanings in various sciences.
Casual examples of interaction outside of science include:

§  communication of any sort, for example two or more people talking to each other, or communication among groups, organizations, nations or states: trade, migration, foreign relations, transportation,

§  the feedback during the operation of machines such as a computer or tool, for example the interaction between a driver and the position of his or her car on the road: by steering the driver influences this position, by observation this information returns to the driver.

§  all communication is based on meaning and interaction

§  The interpretative and interaction approach are a collection of many theories. Communication is seen an exchange of people who act with communication and interpret their real situation and form the situation and the self with interaction. These theories also describe what people do with the media. Communication must be framed in a social and cultural context.

Paul Watzlawick's Interactional View deals with interpersonal communication. His theory has five axioms that explain his view;

§  Axiom 1: One cannot not communicate: This axiom basically says that even if you are not actually talking, or perhaps not doing anything, you are still communicating. Nonverbal are a huge part of communication. Even if you are attempting to avoid speaking, you are still expressing nonverbal. Examples could be facial expressions, the way you are sitting, or your silence in general.

§  Axiom 2: Human beings communicate both digitally and analogically: Analogical communication "represents things by likeness" (Griffin, 1997). Nonverbal communication, for example, is classified as analogical by Watzlawick. Digital communication "refers to things by name" (Griffin 170). Language is considered to be digital.

§  Axiom 3: Communication = Content + Relationship: Content is "what" is actually said, while relationship is "how" it is said (Griffin, 1997). A few quick examples can make the distinction between content and relationship more clear. If content is what is said, then relationship is how it is said. If content is computer data, then relationship is the computer program. Basically, the content and relationship make up a communication sequence.

§  Axiom 4: The nature of the relationship depends on how both parties punctuate the communication sequence: This axiom describes how each person perceives, or punctuates, a communication sequence. An example can help to clarify. Let's say that you have a conversation with a roommate. The conversation makes you upset, but you do not tell him or her feelings. The next time that you see your roommate, you are cold to him or her. Your roommate then realizes that you are upset about something. You have punctuated your feelings during the original conversation. However, your roommate thinks that you have recently become upset.

§  Axiom 5: All communication is either Symmetrical or Complementary: According to Watzlawick, symmetrical communication is "communication based on equal power." Complementary communication is "based on differences in power" (Griffin, 1997). A healthy relationship will have both types of power. Too much of one type of power can lead to possible conflicts. Watzlawick (1974) refers to the relational aspect of interaction as “metacommunication”. It is communication about communication. This is how I see myself, this is how I see you, and this is how I see you seeing me.

§  The interactional view holds that there is no way to label a relationship on the basis of a single verbal statement. Interaction requires a sequence of two messages- a statement from one person, and a response from the other

Interactional View is based on Systems Theory

·         Relationships within a family system are interconnected and highly resistant to change. Communication among members has both a content and relationship component. The system can be transformed only when members receive outside help to reframe the relational punctuation

·         The Interactional View is dependent on the particular situation at hand. Miscommunication occurs because people are not “speaking the same language.” These languages contrast because people have different points of view from which they are speaking. When people’s content and relationship component do not match up, miscommunication is likely to occur.

·         This theory has many implications for everyday life. Since families often suffer from miscommunication, this theory is able to explain why such things take place. The theory’s suggestion to reframe problems in order to gain a better understanding of what is going on seems like sound and practical advice.

.The interactional view utilizes this framework to define and explain concepts relevant to communication.  Unlike other theories of communication, this definition does not concern itself in the least with shared meaning.  If one person behaves in the presence of another, it is considered communication, regardless of the presence or lack of mutual understanding.  Put differently, behavior equals sending a message equals communicating. 

The “impossibility of not communicating” is dictated by the logic of the theory.  Since the theory states that all behavior is communication, and you cannot not behave, it follows that you cannot not communicate.  Whether or not we intend it, whether or not we even speak or make eye contact at all, and our behaviors all send messages, and hence communicate something.

“It is difficult to imagine how any behavior in the presence of another person can avoid being a communication of one's own view of the nature of one's relationship with that person and how it can fail to influence that person.” Watzlawick

Critique of the Theory

peoples interact between dilemmas what it come between the communication differences of relationship. Among a degree of comparatively and relativity. Relationships are viewed mechanically in the Interactional View. One individual described it as, “…pair[s] of cybernetic systems interacting through feedback.” Since relationships are systems, many of their properties can be predicted. However, this obviously does not take into account the varying emotions that can affect the relationship. There are several personality traits and mental states that will not be the same for all those interacting with each other. As we well know, human beings can be unpredictable. Particularly if the interaction they are having is negative. You cannot predict why someone suddenly shuts down or starts swearing at you if it is uncalled for in the situation. There may be some hidden mental deficits or psychological conditions are more to blame for the course of the interaction rather than being able to situate it along one of the five axioms. 

As well, the first axiom of this theory is left up to interpretation. The axiom, you cannot not communicate, is based on the idea that even if you don’t say anything your non-verbal communication speaks volumes. There are individuals out there who have an extremely hard time appropriately interpreting non-verbal communication and this greatly disrupts their ability to have normal interactions. For example individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome cannot interpret non-verbal cues. Their interpretation of a situation can be totally skewed by their psychological diagnosis, which in turn affects the direction of the interaction. This theory does not account for this. 

As well, the idea of misinterpretation can also be related to cultural differences between the individuals interacting. An interesting example occurs when looking at the hand gesture in which the hand is held palm up and the index finger is extended in and out three or four times. This non-verbal gesture means ‘come here’ in North America but has a very different meaning in Latin America. In this society it means that you are very romantically interested in the person and is considered a solicitation. So using this non-verbal cue innocently with someone from Latin America could land you in hot water or with a date for Friday. Regardless, this interaction is affected by interpretation of the non-verbal cue. 

The final critique of this theory is held by several people who have produced literature on the topic and it regards the practical application of this theory. The Interactional View was originally devised to look at family units and the interaction among family members. However, in today’s society, several of our interactions are done outside of the family unit. As well, many of our relationships are with individuals in the virtual world we cannot actually see. The non-verbal aspect is no longer there. We need theories that can be transferred from one setting to another. With the influx of technology and changing social nature of our society, we are left to decipher the theory into this new realm ourselves and in doing so, some aspects of the theory fall short. The Interactional View is very helpful in the acknowledgement of patterns and analyzing why we become "stuck" in communication sequences. It was very easy to pull out the communication pattern in specific communication problem. It was also very easy to how my boyfriend and I are always communicating even when we do not explicitly say something. "There are situations in which deliberate vagueness is likely to be more effective as a communication strategy than clarity or openness, yet the noble values of self-disclosure and clarity predominate in much communication research and teaching" (Wilder, 1979, p. 183). Other theories about communication do not emphasize the importance of implicit communication like the Interactional View does. The Interactional View also makes it easy to see how we become locked into these patterns and how it is difficult to change the dynamic of a relationship due to a lack of miscommunication and the difference in opinion about how the relationship sequence in punctuated. The Interactional View’s strongest asset is how it shows how communication becomes locked and hard to change.

When trying to relate my situation to the Interactional View I found some things difficult. The biggest problem I had was that when analyzing our usual sequence of communication it was hard to find a beginning and an end. In the first axiom it states that, one cannot not communicate, therefore how do we know when one communication patterns ends and another begins? Also although Eric and I do tend to fall into a pattern of communication there is usually something that triggers the conversation, for instance a phone call/text/email from the woman he cheated on me with or a comment from one of our friends or family members. We are not constantly in this communication pattern; there is a clear ending and an even clearer beginning.

Another problem I had analyzing my relationship was trying to figure out if we were symmetrical or complimentary. I would say that the majority of the time we are complimentary however, there are times when we are symmetrical during the same discussion. I gave the example that most of the time when one partner is expressing anger the other becomes a little apprehensive and quiet as to not provoke further anger. However, there are times when the anger provokes the reaction of getting angry and that anger builds on both sides, so our relationship is not so easily place into one category.

References:

Anonymous, (2010). Paul Watzlawick. Retrieved from http://comunicacionorg.wordpress.com/page/5/
Anonymous (n.d.) Quotes by Paul Watzlawick. Retrieved November 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/paul_watzlawick.html.
Appendix3: Watzlawick’s Five Axioms. Retrieved from http://www.wanterfall.com/Communication-Watzlawick's-Axioms.htm
Blanford, R. (2009) Paul Watzlawick's Third Axiom of Communication: Every Interaction Has Both a Content and a Relationship Dimension. Retrieved on November 8, 2010 from http://www.suite101.com/content/paul-watzlawicks-third-axiom-of-communications-a166706
Bodin, A.M. (2007). Paul Watzlawick: A Commemoration. Retrieved from http://www.mri.org/pdfs/Paul_Obit_ART.pdf
Communication Pragmatics /Interactional View. Retrieved form http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/intview.htm
Motley, M. T. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1-20.

Constructivism of Jesse Delia

Cognitive complexity is said to be a sophisticated set of mental constructs that enables a person to distinguish subtle differences among people. (Griffin 2006 p.a-1) I interpret that as an ability to read people think this theory shows that some people are better than others at reading people and a great example of this is the differences in the work staff.

The editor, ask them to produce the program while he sees as who is fast to understand and implement and order who is the fastest acceptance and take a major action.

One of the other editor has less of a grasp on cognitive complexity, he traits everyone exactly the same regardless of what they respond to best.

The head editor’s construct abstractness is good, he understand each reporter’s states and motives and determines the best way to get his point across. The other editor has poor grasp construct abstractness because he doesn’t look that closely into each player mental state think the reason that the editor is better with reporters because of his construct differentiation. He has developed a large number of constructs that he uses when dealing with his reporters, he has developed so many because he has been editing for a long time. the other editor hasn’t been editing as long so he hasn’t had time to develop as many constructs .the chief editor uses person centered message very well where as the other editor doesn’t use person centered messages.

Constructivism is a communication theory that seeks to explain individual differences in people’s ability to communicate skillfully in social situations. You probably don’t need to be convinced that some people are better at understanding, attracting, persuading, informing, comforting, or entertaining others with whom they talk. In fact, you may be taking communication courses so that you can become more adept at reaching these communication goals.(P98) Delia is the former chair of the department of speech communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and now serves as the executive director of international research relations at the school. Along with a network of constructivist researchers, he uses Walter Crockett’s open-ended Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ) to help us “get inside our head.”  So that you fully understand the theory and what it says about your communication, take 10 minutes to respond to the RCQ before you become sensitized to what the survey is measuring. INTERPERSONAL CONSTRUCTS AS EVIDENCE OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY-Interpersonal Constructs are the cognitive templates or stencils we fit over reality to bring order to our perceptions. The Role Category Questionnaire is designed to sample the interpersonal constructs in our mental toolbox that we bring to the construction site of meaning—the central processing function of our minds. Much like sets of opposing terms (warm-cool, good-bad, fast-slow), constructs are contrasting features that we have available to classify other people.

An Index of Social Perception Skills-Cognitive complexity The mental ability to distinguish subtle personality and behavior differences among people. RCQ are trying to determine our degree of cognitive complexity as we form impressions of other people and analyze social situations. They are convinced that people with a large set of interpersonal constructs have better social perception skills than those whose set of mental templates is relatively small. (Griffin 2006 p.106)

SCORING THE RCQ FOR CONSTRUCT DIFFERENTIATION- Although the RCQ can be scored in different ways, most constructivist researchers cull the descriptions of liked and disliked peers for the amount of construct differentiation. Differentiation is defined as the number of separate personality constructs used to portray the person in question. I’ll take you through a shorthand version of the scoring procedure so you can see how constructivists might rate you on cognitive complexity.

PERSON-CENTERED MESSAGES—THE INTERPERSONAL EDGE- As Delia uses the phrase, person-centered messages refers to “messages which reflect an awareness of an adaptation to subjective, affective, and relational aspects of the communication contexts.”  In other words, the speaker is able to anticipate how different individuals might respond to a message, and adjust his or her communication accordingly. (Griffin 2006 p.109)

Message production-A three-stage process of goals assessed, plans selected, and tactics enacted (action). Procedural record-The recollection of an action taken in a specific situation paired with its consequences; an if-when-then memory.

Suggestion;

Think of people about your age whom you know well. Select one person you like and pick someone you dislike. Once you have two specific people in mind, spend a moment to mentally compare and contrast them in terms of personality, habits, beliefs, and the way they treat others. Don’t limit yourself to similarities and differences between the two; let your mind play over the full range of characteristics that make them who they are. Now take a piece of paper and for about five minutes describe the person you enjoy so that a stranger would understand what he or she is like. Skip physical characteristics, but list all of the attributes, mannerisms, and reactions to others that identify who he or she is.

When you’ve finished the description, do the same thing for the person you don’t like. Again, write down all the personal characteristics or actions that you associate with that person. Spend about five minutes on this description.

 The core assumption of constructivism is that “persons make sense of the world through systems of personal constructs.”  Constructs are the cognitive templates or stencils we fit over reality to bring order to our perceptions. the interpersonal constructs in our mental toolbox that we bring to the construction site of meaning—the central processing function of our minds. Much like sets of opposing terms (warm-cool, good-bad, fast-slow), constructs are contrasting features that we have available to classify other people.

A police artist has an identification kit with which an eyewitness can construct the face of a suspect. By systematically altering the shape of the chin, size of the nose, distance between the eyes, line of the hair, and so forth, the witness can build a likeness of the person in question. It centers on the categories of personality and action that we use to define the character of another person.

The arena of politics offers a familiar example of the way we use constructs to describe another individual. All of us have our own bipolar dimensions of judgment that we apply to politicians. Some typical scales are liberal-conservative, steadfast-flexible, competent-inept. The politically astute observer may draw on dozens of these interpretive orientations to describe shades of difference. There are conservatives, and there are social conservatives. Then there are articulate social conservatives. Some of them are belligerent, and so forth. On the other hand, those who are politically unsophisticated may use only one value-laden construct as they watch the six o’clock news. They see only winners and losers.

Suggestion;

Constructivism for its emphasis on learners’ active participation and the heightened recognition given to the social nature of learning. The bad  side of constructivism lies in its tendency towards epistemological relativism (including  individual and social community relativism), which seems to be the major challenge that  constructivists face Lastly, the ‘quasireligious or ideological aspect’ is identified as the ugly face of constructivism. The irony now appears to be that from the divergence of constructivist views has emerged a dualist position – the very position constructivism came into being to avoid construction of knowledge between individual and social idiosyncrasy has arisen. This is most clearly seen in popular accounts of constructivists and their recent critics.

This paper starts with a brief summary of constructivism and its two main variants as found in the literature – the cognitive/radical and social/realist traditions. Then, we question the accuracy of popular secondary presentations of original authors’ thoughts, pointing out inconsistencies between interpretations. We attempt to tease out the internal external separatism as the common ground that popular constructivism and its criticisms are based on.  The theories often arise from concepts taken literally and from the lack of appreciation of the general philosophical orientation underpinning his works.

Constructivism emerged as the leading metaphor of human communication interest waned in behaviorist and information-processing perspectives criticized the approach as being too narrow, specialized, isolated and intrapersonal in standpoint. Likewise, the information-processing approach of the as being overly reductionist in its analogy of computer and mind.  Both approaches failed to reflect either the active role of the learning agent or the influence of the social interactive contexts in everyday educational settings. Their mechanistic underpinning by an orderly, predictable, and controllable view of the universe proved inadequate to capture the active and social characteristics of learners. 

The fact that constructivists, of whatever ilk, consensually hold that knowledge is not mechanically acquired, but actively constructed within the constraints and offerings of the learning environment, was commonly regarded as a shift in paradigm.

The mechanistic positivist accounts of learners as recipients of hard-wired knowledge were supplanted by accounts of learners as situated, active knowledge constructors. We note that with this shift, human subjectivity, which was excluded by behaviorist and information processing accounts, has through constructivism returned to the discussion. But what is of great interest is the relation expressed by popular constructivist accounts between the objective and subjective aspects, between the world and mind. For it is upon this point that we examine whether  constructivism can fulfil the promise that it once seemed to hold, to overcome the objective and  the subjective parallelism; and it is here, we argue, that we will find an important insight of  that appears to have been largely overlooked in the literature.

Reference;

Brant R. Burleson and Scott Caplan, “Cognitive Complexity,” in Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, James McCroskey, John Daly, and Matthew Martin (eds.), Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, 1998, pp. 233–286.

Brant R. Burleson and Michael S. Waltman, “Cognitive Complexity: Using the Role Category Questionnaire Measure,” in A Handbook for the Study of Human Communication, Charles Tardy (ed.), Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1988, pp. 1–35.

James Price Dillard, “The Goals-Plans-Action Model of Interpersonal Infl uence,” in Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Infl uence, and Compliance Gaining, John Seiter and Robert Gass (eds.), Pearson, Boston, MA, 2003, pp. 185–206.

www.afirstlook.com.

Social Judgment Theory of Muzafer Sherif

Involvement Perception and evaluation of an idea by comparing it with current attitudes.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Judgment/involvement Theory. What social judgment theory says happens in our heads. We hear a message and immediately judge where it should be placed on the attitude scale in our minds. According to the late Muzafer Sherif, a social psychologist at the University of Oklahoma, this subconscious sorting out of ideas occurs at the instant of perception. We weigh every new idea by comparing it with our present point of view. He called his analysis of attitudes the social judgment–involvement approach, but most scholars refer to it simply as social judgment theory. Ego involvement refers to how crucial an issue is in our lives. Is it central to our well-being? Do we think about it a lot? Does our attitude on the matter go a long way toward defining who we are? Everything I’ve presented up to this point is how social judgment theory describes the cognitive structure of a person’s attitude. We now turn to the two step mental process that Sherif said is triggered when that person hears or reads a message.

This theory has several strengths compared with other consistency theories. First, it realizes, and helps to explain, the role of perception in persuasion. It seems obvious that two different people may perceive a single message differently, and when that happens, Social Judgment/Involvement theory can help explain how and why this occurs. This means that this theory can explain how perception (of messages) influences persuasion. Second, there is a lot of empirical evidence, as noted above, for a curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and persuasion. The processes of assimilation and contrast, and the latitude of rejection, all help explain why this occurs. Third, there is considerable evidence that involvement in the topic of a persuasive message plays an important role in persuasion, and this theory makes use of this concept.

This theory also has some limitations or weaknesses. First, Sherif and Hovland (1961), in their initial formulation, limit the effects of assimilation and contrast to messages in which “the position in communication is susceptible to alternative interpretations” (p. 149). Some messages take positions that are fairly clear, and the audience has less leeway in interpreting those messages, compared with more ambiguous messages. They explain that “we would not expect that a communication taking a clearly black or white stand on an issue would be subject to such displacement” as assimilation or contrast (p. 149).

Second, except for message position, Social Judgment/Involvement theory ignores message content. There is much evidence that several message variables, like evidence or argument quality, affect persuasion. Social Judgment/Involvement theory, like other consistency theories, does not take into account any of these important message variables. It is possible, for example, that a message that falls in the latitude of rejection might not be rejected if it has strong arguments for its position. Messages that are extremely discrepant, at the far end of the latitude of rejection from the listener’s own attitude may almost always be rejected. However, some of messages that fall in other parts of the latitude of rejection might be persuasive if the messages are strong. Third, Social Judgment/Involvement theory ignores the effects of source credibility, another factor that can influence attitude change.

There are also some questions that can be raised about the theory itself. It is not clear when a listener makes a judgment about the position of a persuasive message. Is the message judged before attitude change takes place, as this theory assumes?  It is possible that the process is actually reversed. Messages that are persuasive (that change a listener’s attitudes) may then be perceived as falling into the latitude of acceptance. The listener could think something like, “That message was persuasive. It must have been near to my own attitude.”  On the other hand, messages that fail to persuade people may, after they have failed, be judged to fall into the latitude of rejection: “That message wasn’t persuasive at all. It was really different from my own attitude.”

Some have raised the possibility that the latitudes aren’t really specific to particular topics, but reflect a person’s general persuasibility (Eagly & Telaak, 1992). People who are relatively easy to persuade have wide latitudes of acceptance, while those who are difficult to persuade have wide latitudes of rejection. There are also questions about how involvement is measured (O’Keefe, 1990). Is involvement an indication of a topic’s importance?  Is it an indication of how often a topic is encountered by a listener?  The common cold, thankfully, affects far more people that malaria, but malaria is a more serious disease. Which should be considered more involving?

Finally, there are questions about some of the research on Social Judgment/Involvement theory. It is difficult (but not impossible) to manipulate involvement. Studies by Sherif and Hovland (1961) compared groups of people who were involved with other groups who were uninvolved. Because they did not randomly assign subjects to involve and uninvolved groups, it is possible that those people who were in the involved group differed in other ways from those in the uninvolved group. If true, differences in attitudes between these two groups could have been caused by their different levels of involvement -- as the researchers assumed -- but those differences could also have been caused by other differences between the two groups. As O’Keefe (1990) explained, “the high involvement participants had more extreme attitudes than the low-involvement participants,” which could mean that differences between the groups were due to extremity of attitudes rather than involvement levels (p. 40). Thus, more research needs to be conducted to understand this theory. Social Judgment Theory: Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths

§  Explains how the perception of messages influences persuasion. For example, if my perception is that abortion is wrong, I will be much harder to persuade on the issue of creating more abortion clinics than a person who does not hold this view.

§  Helps predict attitude change based on where a person holds a position, e.g. if it is within their latitude of acceptance or not.

§  Is an effective tool for advertisers and campaign managers when trying to invoke attitude change, e.g., promoting a product that is similar to one that is already favored by the audience.

§  Makes use of the concept that involvement in a topic has a great impact on persuadability (Sherif and Hovland, 1961).

Weaknesses

§  The concept of ego-involvement is not well-defined. Is high ego-involvement indicative of a topic’s importance, or is it indicative of how often a topic is encountered by a listener?

§  Critics have raised the possibility that the latitudes aren’t really specific to particular topics, but reflect a person’s general persuadability (Eagly & Telaak, 1972). In other words, a person easy to persuade will have wider latitudes of acceptance than a person difficult to persuade.

§  Ignores message content and message variables such as evidence or argument quality.

§  People may be more open to persuasion on issues about which they do not know much.

§  Does not deal much with people who have low involvement other than to say they have high latitude of non-commitment.

My Two Cents

As one of my favorite communication theories, I tend to side more with the strengths rather than the weaknesses of this theory. I think it provides a great outline that can be used to effectively persuade others as well as to understand how we are being persuaded. This theory is a testable, valuable tool for anyone wanting to persuade a person or audience.

Social judgment theory is one of many theories that try to explain how people choose one belief instead of another. This theory can explain why people have a hard time letting go of some beliefs and reject other beliefs so readily.

1.      One Truth

o    For social judgment theory, there is always one truth that conforms to reality. However, there are many cases where several people might disagree about what the truth is.

Definition

o    When a person decides what she will believe, she compares the new idea with what she already wants to believe and then decides whether to reject the idea.

Zones

o    People place new ideas in the agree zone, disagree zone or non-committal zone in their head. Thus, people can have an idea in their heads without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that idea.

Adaptive Knowledge

o    Knowledge can be adapted to new ideas. If new ideas are favorable but contradict existing ideas, existing ideas can be adjusted to fit with new ideas.

Ego Involvement

o    People can think about some ideas in a detached way while thinking of other ideas with high emotion. Ideas that play a large role in an individual's life are often more evaluated instead of being placed in the non-committed zone, and new ideas are more likely to be rejected.

–       

References Eagly, A. H., & Telaak, K. (1972). Width of the latitude  of acceptance as a determinant of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 388-397. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. www.afirstlook.com.

Elaboration Likelihood

Model of Richard Petty & John Cacioppo

Elaboration likelihood model is a theory put forward by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo. This theory provides an effective way to persuade someone or cause changes in attitude or behavior. This theory is talking about the cognitive processes performed by humans in interpreting the message. How to categorize people to interpret the message from a process of communication they receive. To then determine the attitudes and take action.

Elaboration likelihood model describes the mental attitude of humans in processing the messages they received in the communication process, how a person focus on the message and the attributes contained in it.

This theory is based on the paradigm of positivism, which the researchers use quantitative methods that use survey and analysis in developing this theory. Based on the assumption that there is, then this theory to analyze the existing sections to understand the whole of its parts. Elaboration likelihood model is a theory that includes the perspective of an objective which is used to understand, explain, and predict human behavior. Petty and Cacioppo assume that humans will tend to hold on to the correct attitude to life. Sometimes it does not seem logical, but in reality we are always trying to find the truth.

Of the four issues contained in the epistemology, Elaboration likelihood Model including the knowledge gained after the experience. The point is, this theory emerged after the research and observations in the survey and analysis of existing realities in society.

This theory includes the theory of absolutism, because this theory was formed based on a survey done in the community. Consist of quantitative data and calculation of exact science. So that the deficiencies in this theory due to the emergence of new phenomena today. Not because of wrong theories that have been established. ELM including rationalism theory which views human beings as objects of research.

ELM is a theory that describes the character of man as a reactor that makes a stimulus with the intention of making changes in attitudes and behavior. This theory describes the process of persuasive for interpreting a message, how much work is done to influence others in their affective and personal so interested in the issues discussed and also how the message recipient to think about the contents and truth of the issue receives.

This theory states that communication between people is a process whereby each person receive, transmit, interpret and conclude a message with stimulant. When someone has shown a tendency to think about the contents of the message, then the next issue is whether they can respond to the contents of the message. We would find it difficult to persuade people around him when things do not support or that person is not ready to receive the messages we convey. From this theory can be seen that human beings are controlled by the state. In the process, this theory led to changes in attitudes that are permanent and long, sovereign, when observed from the central route.

Elaboration likelihood model is the theory that value free. This theory is intended to reveal what it is, in accordance with the existing facts about the incident. A communicant must be able to convey his message with the most effective manner. ELM can be classified as classical sciences because this theory is intended to uncover the facts are.

Concept

1. Elaboration

An activity to evaluate and verify the message. In this case, that process occurs when a person thinks about an argument she was on about in persuasive communication.

2. Central Route

Is the main point in interpreting the message. At this point, the processing of messages requires great mental effort because the audience did elaboration of the received message.

Three. Peripheral Route

Offers a shortcut to accept or reject a message. In this pathway, the recipient of the message does not require such precision in the central route, because they only accept and reject the message without looking at the attribute or other purposes which are also contained in the message. Audience only depends on a number of cues that allow them to make decisions in a short time.

There are six signals that trigger the use of peripheral route, include the following:

a. Reciprocation: There is a feeling indebted to persuade people.

b. Consistency: There is a feeling that what is common to be persuaded.

c. Social Proof: There is evidence to be persuaded because the message has been carried out by the crowd.

d. Liking: We liked the ideas we persuade people.

e. Authority: There's interest to persuade the power of the people so as not to bias the choice.

f .Scarcity: There is concern that the offer does not come twice.

Suggestion

The Elaboration Likelihood Model basically seeks to explain two different ways people take in persuasive information. For one of my classes we have to persuade the class to donate to a charity of our choice, then everyone will vote for the charity which they think best deserves the donation. I decided to plan my persuasive approach according to the ELM. The ELM describes two routes which messages can be processed by. When the receiver is elaborating a message it will either take the peripheral route, or the central route. When I present the charity I want my class to donate to, I will have different ideas and arguments that will allow them to process my messages through either or both routes.

The peripheral route can be thought of as the “easy way” of elaborating the message. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to think about or analyze the argument. For my presentation, I want to talk about a charity that has helped my niece and nephew. They help a lot of kids that come from families with problems, and they are an organization that anyone can rely on if they have a close family child in need. Talking about kids, their innocency, and the fact that this organization is there for them is probably a message that will follow a peripheral route to persuasion. They may choose this charity because my classmates themselves have kids, nieces and nephews, or some child they know that they really care and worry about. They can relate to me, and the charity. Having that feeling of relation and similarity may help persuade them to choose my charity. But it didn’t take much cognitive thinking. It didn’t require research or a true analytical elaboration of the charity. Just the fact that they could relate to me, and knowing a loved child which the charity could potentially help is still not having a true logical analysis of my argument. I can also talk about all of the poor, innocent children this charity has helped in the past and the many more it can help. This will also help to persuade my audience but they may be persuaded because of an emotion they felt. Again, the emotion is something that follows a peripheral route because it does not require too much cognitive thinking. If I show pictures of cute children suffering in abusive families that the charity could help with their donations, may also allow for my classmates to elaborate through a peripheral route. They may choose this charity because of a touching image they saw, and an emotion felt. The images may have a lasting effect on the way they think and may have a significant impact in their persuasion, but it still did not require a logical, analytical thought process. I will also tell a personal story of some of the things my very own niece and nephew went through and since my classmates know me, they can have an interest to choose my charity because of the personal relationship I have had with it. Since my charity provides an actual story that really happened to me, they may vote on my presentation because they have seen (or heard of) one example in which the charity helped an actual classmate. This route of elaboration would still be the peripheral one I think, mainly because they still didn’t have much of a cognitive effort in it, they just listened to my story, took the example, and went with this charity.

Something that affects what route the person may take is your ability to evaluate the message and your motivation to elaborate on the message. If my classmates do not have any real motivation to do all the research and analyzing to make sure this is the best charity to donate to, then they will take cues falling in the peripheral route to help them come to a decision about which charity to vote for. Like I said, the peripheral route is sort of the “easy way out”. If my classmates are truly motivated to do the research, and take the time and effort to really think my arguments through (by using more logic rather that emotion) and they have the ability to do so, then they will elaborate my message through the central route. Some of the things I can say that will lead them to use the central route is give an actual history of the charity, statistics of how far their money goes, how many children they have been able to help in the past, and how many they plan to get to in the future. I can provide information about how successful they have actually been and provide proof with it. I could argue on reasons of why they need more money, and what impact a small amount of money could do for a lot of children. These ideas take a little more effort to take in, analyze and think about. If you are truly motivated and have the ability to do so, you would probably take the time to look up the charity, do research, take all of the arguments and rationalize on their logic and reason, etc.

The theory of ELM states that the central route has a stronger impact on persuasion and usually has a more permanent result.  It may be easier to get someone reeled in using the peripheral route a though. I think I will definitely use some arguments that my classmates can analyze through the central route and some they can elaborate on through the peripheral route as well. Hopefully they have the ability and motivation to think about my message and arguments to an adequate extent, so they can really understand my valid arguments. I also hope to let some of the peripheral/ emotional appeals grab their attention as well.

Recommended resource: “Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo, Alan J. Strathman, and Joseph R. Priester, “To Think or Not to Think: Exploring Two Routes to Persuasion,” in Psychological Insights and Perspectives, 2 nd ed., Timothy Brock and Melanie Green (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005, pp. 81–116.

Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.

Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, “Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition versus Integration,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, 1990, pp. 367–374.

 www.afirstlook.com.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Leon Festinger

The distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action.Cognition is a way of knowing, beliefs, judgments, thoughts. Dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling that motivates a person to take steps to reduce these uncomfortable feelings (an imbalance), while the consonant means balance.

Leon Festinger (1957:4) calls this feeling of imbalance "cognitive dissonance" or the nonconformity of understanding, these are feelings that people have when they "find their own an act which did not fit with what they know, or have any opinions that do not match opinions of others. "This concept formed the core of the CDT or understanding of the theory by Festinger inconsistency, a theory that denies that the discrepancy in an unhappy or uneasy feelings that motivate or encourage men to take steps to reduce them.

Incompatibility is the designation for the imbalances and adjustment is the designation for the balance. According to Roger Browns, CDT has two elements with three different relationships to each other, including the following:

1. Relationships consonants: 2 element positioned at one another balanced

Example: we learn with high performance index.

2. Dissonant relationship: two elements in the imbalance

Example: the person who approved the abortion Catholic.

Three. Relationship irrelevant: two elements are not related one another

Example: women and equal rights in the workplace.

Assumption CDT 

a. Humans have a desire for consistency in beliefs, attitudes, and behavior.

b. Dissonance created by psychological inconsistencies (Brown),.

c. Dissonance is a feeling not like to encourage people to perform actions with measurable impact.

d. Dissonance will encourage businesses to obtain a consonant and an attempt to reduce dissonance.

Hypothesis Three: How To Reduce Dissonance Between Attitudes and Action

a. Selective Exposure-reduce the importance of dissonant beliefs.

b. Post decision Dissonance-adding consonant beliefs.

c. Minimal justification-produce more dissonance and require more changes to reduce them.

Level Dissonance

a. Level of interest: refers to how significant a problem. Level of interest is proportional to the level of dissonance.

b. Dissonance ratio: the number of consonant cognition compared with dissonant. If the ratio is at a balanced position, it will be less experienced dissonance.

c. Rationality: refers to the reasons suggested to explain the inconsistencies. The more a person is not able to explain the reason of the conduct, the greater the dissonance that is felt.

Suggestion; Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dissonance Theory
This theory have stimulated a great deal of discussion: It has implications for a variety of situations. It makes predictions about whether people will seek information (selective exposure). It makes predictions about human thought and behavior after making a decision (post-decisional dissonance). It has implications for persuasion as well as the specific form of persuasion called induced compliance. Cognitive Dissonance Theory is a very wide-ranging theory.

Second, Dissonance theory has generated literally hundreds of studies. Although it is not always supported (for example, curiosity might interfere with the selective exposure effect), there is no question that this theory has strong research support.

One important limitation is that dissonance theory makes no predictions about how dissonance will be reduced. It lists several options for reducing cognitive dissonance (add consonant cognitions, change dissonant cognitions, alter the importance of cognitions), but surely persuaders want dissonance to be resolved in a way that furthers their goals. If I try to induce dissonance in my girlfriend to get her to go to a movie with me, I don’t want her to change her attitude toward me (like me less) to reduce that dissonance!  The fact that it does not make specific predictions, like Social, means that we should qualify the statement on experimental support for this theory. A theory that makes specific predictions can be subjected to stronger tests than vague theories. If the research on Dissonance Theory had been able to test specific predictions, the empirical support for this theory might be stronger than it is.

It seems likely that some people can tolerate dissonance more than others. Some individuals may be more mentally “tidy,” while others may be willing to put up with some inconsistency in their thoughts. Dissonance theory does not take into account such possible individual differences (actually, this limitation applies to all consistency theories).

Another limitation common to all consistency theories is that Dissonance Theory does not consider the nature of the persuasive message. Surely some messages (those with evidence, for example, or with arguments that are more relevant to the audience) are capable of creating more dissonance; other, weaker messages probably evoke less dissonance. However, Dissonance theory ignores the effects of message variables on cognitive dissonance and persuasion.

Recommended resource: Joel Cooper, Robert Mirabile, and Steven Scher, “Actions and Attitudes: The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” in Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, 2 nd ed., Timothy Brock and Melanie Green (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005, pp. 63–79.

Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1957.

 Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills (eds.), Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1999.

www.afirstlook.com.