Communications Exam 1

Source Oriented

"Intent" Matters

Receiver Oriented

Intent does not matter

Where is Source-oriented communication used?

Public Relations (Ex; Journalism, Advertising)

Where is receiver-oriented communication used?

Interpersonal, communication, consulting

What are the flaws of source-oriented communication?

Too narrow

What are the flaws of receiver-oriented communication?

too broad, doesn't draw the line between communication & behavior

SMCR

Linear/one-way view of communication

Interactional Model

Communication takes turns

Transaction Model

Communication plays role simultaneously

Function of Theories

Organise Experience, Extend Knowledge, Stimulate and Guide Research, Perform an Anticipatory Function

Rhetorical

Talk is a practical art

Semiotic

Study of Signs in ordinary/everyday life

Phenomenological

personal interpretation that we make as individuals

Cybernetic

Information processing
-expansive look on communication networks
-Where the message went wrong

Socio-Psychological

Cause & Effect on human interaction

Socio-Cultural

Everyday interactions depend heavily on pre-existing social norms/shared cultural patterns

Critical

-Fairness, Injustice, Power
-Language is to keep or break down social order

Intrapersonal

Communication with oneself

Interpersonal

Imagined Interactions

Paradigm

A grand macro-scale model with a set of assumptions that are shared by many "like theories"

Drawbacks of Paradigm

-Incomplete, oversimplified
-many ways to model a single process

Covering Laws

-Focuses on numbers
-Makes Generalisations

Strengths of Covering Laws

-Good at making predictions
-Identifies clear themes in human interaction
-Frequently used
-Allows you to study large group of people

Weaknesses of Covering Laws

-Can appear Linear
-Overemphasized in-groups & outgroups

Rules

Rules you pick to govern your opinion

Strengths of Rules

Strengths of Rules
-Free choice interpretation
-Multiple meanings to any one action
-Diverse perspectives

Weaknesses of Rules

-No clear cut answers
-Doesn't offer any generalised ability

Systems

Patterns of behaviours

Strengths of Systems

-Most aware of the communication context
-Good at giving descriptions of how things are interacted
-Doesn't attempt to make universal generalisations Scope

Scope

Boundaries & limits of the theories explanations

Logical Consistency

Do the principles of theories contradict each other?

Parsimony

Theory as simple as it could be

Utility

Theory is useful, practical, applied

Testability

Can parts of the theory be falsified?

Heurism

Theory stimulating new ways of things

Test of Time

How long has the theory been around? How long has it been used?

Assumptions of Expectancy Violations Theory

-Human interaction is driven by expectations
-When expectations are not met (deviation) becomes aroused or curious
-Evaluations of deviations are mediated by the reward value of the communicator

Critique of Expectancy Violations Theory

Scope: does the throw define its parameters
Utility: Can you use it/can you apply it anywhere
Testability: Have to be able to observe it
Heurism: Stimulated ideas

Expectations

behaviours we can anticipate in a conversation with another person

Arousal

When you notice something was not anticipated as you thought you become more AWARE!

Threat Threshold

Interactant in the conversation feels uncomfortable in the presence of deviation

Violation Valence

Positive or Negative assessment of deviation

Assumptions of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

-Communicators carry rich assortiments of cognitive elements
-What is consonant or dissonant for one person may not be for another
-Dissonance produces tension for change
-Human attempt to deduce dissonance tend to avoid situations that produce it
-More dissonance=Greater pressure to change

Sources of Consonance

-Reassurance of Security
-Demonstration of Predictability
-The use of Rewards

Sources of Dissonance

-Loss of Group Prestige
-Economic Loss
Loss of Personal Prestige
-Uncertainty of Prediction
-Guilt

Ways Dissonance is reduced

-New elements may be added to cognitive systems to add more "weight" to one side or the other
-Elements may be refined as important
-Consent information may be sought
-Info may be distorted

Critique of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

-Utility(-): Maybe the theory can't be applied
-Testability(-): Validate & Falsify ideas, theory is hard to falsify

Anchors

most acceptable position to the receiver on the topic

Latitude of Acceptance

range of all positions that are agreeable to the individuals or audience on that topic

Latitude of Noncommitment

range of all positions toward which individual or audience feels neutral

Latitude of Rejection

range of all positions that are objectionable to an individual or audience

Ego- Involvement

Importance of the issue to the receiver
(As ego involvement increases, the latitude of rejection increases)

Distortion Process: Assimilate

when something sounds similar we view it as the same

Distortion Process: Contrast

When something is slightly different we see it as VERY different

Critique of Social Judgement Theory

-Heurism (+)
-Testability(+)
-Utility(+)
-Logical Consistency (-)