Sunday, January 3, 2010
Communication Theory or Concept of the Week
In this area of the Blog, nominate a communication theory or concept of the week. Comment on the nominations and responses of others. For example, during Week One you might nominate an idea that comes from any of the videos presented at the end of the "Course Introduction" video lecture (e.g., the Cardigans' music video, Jim Carrey's ideas on communication, the "future of communication" video).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
114 comments:
Hello,
I thought I might offer my reactions to the video clips contained in lecture 1, specifically the cardigans video and the future Prometheus clip.
In the lecture Professor Walker asks how we can measure the communication between the actors non verbally. In regards to the cardigan video, there are two observations I would like to point out in terms of eye contact and body posture.
When the actors are making eye contact it represents communicating and connecting, while breaking eye contact signifies the opposite.
Concordantly, in terms of body posture, facing towards each other is connecting while facing away is disconnecting/resisting/distancing. The actors in the video engage in both of these nonverbal communication gestures.
My other observation refers to the Prometheus clip
In the prognostication the narrator foretells that Google will buy Microsoft. I find this unlikely, specifically because of how Google affects global online communication in the course of business. 99% of operating profit of Google comes from paid click adverts. Combined with the organic search engine, Google essentially monopolizes the gateway through which businesses reach their clients online. Not only do they dictate who can reach customers and how, but they reap incredible profits from essentially doing nothing but maintain the status quo. Its my belief that the current paradigm is unsustainable, and the monopolization of communication between businesses and clients online will be broken, most likely by government (e.g. china has already said no to google in favour of state sponsored engine baidu). If I could offer my own prediction of the future, we will look back on this quaint time as the brief, opportunistic hey day of paid click advertisement, pioneered by google who either will have modified its business to other sectors (as it is currently attempting to do with hardware/OS/Mobile phones) or has disappeared from the business spotlight.
My other observation on this provocative ad is that it is delivered matter of factly; the narrator sounds almost bored as if he was explaining to a child, and he speaks in the present tense, as if the events he described have already happened (he says "google buys microsoft" not "google will buy microsoft").
I think that the Jim Carrey video did a great job in defining rules of communication in a very effective and humorous way. I think that even though we may not be aware that the rules are there, seeing him behave in the way he does can make us aware of what could happen if those rules are not in place. However humorous they may seem, certain circumstances do require us to behave in a certain manner and can affect communication if they are not followed.
Jim Carey is a very dynamic comedian. He can contort his body into the most unbelievable positions. He made a great example of this in his video. His physical maneuvers alone communicate volumes about the probability of successful message exchange. If I was to see someone in one of these awkward positions, without them speaking, I would immediately start to think through all the possible reasons they were in that configuration. My analytical thoughts would lead me towards ideas or understandings that are predetermined by my own experience i.e., is that person physically deformed, mocking others or trying to get attention. This may cause me to immediately guard myself from communication of any depth with that person such as eye contact, smiling or moving towards them.
But to add verbal communication to the above abnormal message channel, my guarded communication would become more guarded. When Jim spoke about meeting women in bars while in his contorted position, he spoke in situations where one would expect a different level of interpersonal communication to already be established, such as the eye contact, smiles or positive movement. In other words, the mixing of the two communication styles was not what was expected by experience and therefore my response would be of greater resisting against communication. I may have classified the person as being weird already, but now to have to deal with them in a higher interpersonal plain. It seems all meaningful communication channels may be cut off completely.
Thus, Jim Carey’s video clip is a great example of all the parts on interpersonal communication in both verbal and non-verbal communication.
In regards to the video and the Cardigans song, in last week's video clips, I'm unsure of the TV series since I too do not watch the WC (sorry Prof. Walker). When Prof. Walker read the lyrics I was under the impression that the song had something to do with drug intervention or interaction. The comments regarding “intruding in the little holes in your veins” made me referenced the quote towards disconnecting. After watching the video clip I realized that I was completely disconnected from the actual meaning of the lyrics. Although I couldn’t experience the verbal interaction, between the people in the video, I recognized an emotional conflict between these two individuals. Because the cardigans song is sung by a female I find a greater emotional connection to the young lady in the video.
The first thing that came to my mind, after watching this video, was the source credibility theory by Carl Hovland and Walter Weiss. The source credibility theory is the “perceived competence and trustworthiness of a speaker or writer that affects how the message is received” (page 14 of our text). It was obvious that my initial perception of the Cardigans song was completely changed after watching the video. And this leads me to think heavily about perception, and how we identify with various situations. I understand that the Cardigans lyrics may not be represented in the video as well as the original songwriter had planned. For instance, the songwriter may have intended the lyrics to represent something other than a 27-year-old girl's infatuation with a guy. Whatever the case may be I believe the most important issue here is the source and how we perceive it. I take it that this falls under an interpretive approach and along with many other factors I believe this is one of the primary reasons why communication can be so difficult.
Good morning everyone. I'd have to nominate the ideas on communication put forth in the Jim Carey video as ideas of the week. Too often I find myself giving the same old responses to the same old questions- "How'ya doin'?" "Good, you?". I need to be more creative with my otherwise automated communication. Carey's twist on inventive body language however looks somewhat painful, but maybe I'll give it a try.
I agree with the Jim Carey clip. Like rdaily said, most people do address casual friends and random people, with the same phrases. It would be a fun and challenging idea to always try to approach people and greet them with different comments. I feel like in return you would have a better chance of actually engaging in a more in depth conversation and possibly making new friends...
Symbolic Interactionism
I know the week is just about over and we are going to be focussing on some new theories but I just wanted to throw something out there before we move on.
As I was reading about symbolic interaction theory I came across the introductory paragraph to a book by Douglas Hofstadter. Look at pg. 61 in our text for this exert. (7th edition)
It has to do with default assumptions that we attach to words.
I circulated this paragraph amongst my coworkers (all in the education field) to see if they were as stumped as I was. None of them got it except for one (woman) who had read something similar quite some time ago.
Did any one else find this default assumption with the word "surgeon" to be a male only word?
I agree that we tend to use the same greeting over and over, "how are you?" As for myself, I never expect to hear anything other than "fine," but if I do, I am glad to help out if I can.
Jim Carrey is a master at physical comedy. His exaggerated movements make us realize how much we rely on non-verbal communication. His skits wouldn't be funny if they weren't true.
As a follow up to Whittenm, wouldn't it make an interesting study in communications to give an off-the-wall response to "how are you?" and compare the different reactions?
In this weeks readings, we learn about symbolic interaction, and how interactions can be affected in a self fulfilling prophecy manner. This theory reminded me of an experiment conducted in Israel to test how people viewed each other before and after interacting. The participants were asked to rate a photo of the other participants in terms of attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10 before they met. Then the participants interacted in a series of goal oriented activities (building something, getting across a river etc.). A few weeks later, the participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of the participants again, and the researchers found there were significant differences between the first and second ratings for the same person. the experiment suggested that how we perceive one another (even static features such as looks) is influenced by social interaction.
I found this weeks reading very interesting as it dealt with social and behavior issues. The example of Family Therapy and the strange loop example really hit home.Communication can often lead us away from the desired result intended.It also touches on the dangers of labeling or predetermining things in our lives.I feel that communication and relationships go hand in hand. The therapist does a great job of focusing back to the task at hand {improving the family relationship.}
A couple of years ago the whole "How are You?" question really started getting to me. I found that when I would go into a store, an employee would ask me this question, but then no wait for a response and when I said "Fine, how are you?" I wouldn't get an answer. I am sure that this scenario has played out a million times in my life, but now everytime someone asks me this question, it makes me stop, look at them and actually see if they are paying attention to what they are saying, or if it is just an automatic reaction to meeting a new person. If I just met you, do you are I really care how the other person is? Just a thought....
As I joined the class a little late, I'm still making my way through some prior videos. I did want to comment on the Tears for Fears music video that was talked about. It was clear that the music video used a lot of nonverbal communication effects to give the viewer a sense of what the two characters were going through, like the Cardigans' CW video -- we saw looks and nonverbal communication, but didn't hear any actual dialog. I think that's a good example of how much more weight the body language can carry than the words being spoken. Others have spoken about how the characters communicated nonverbally with each other, but there's another layer that deserves consideration: the characters communicating when they are alone -- communicating with the viewer. Facial expressions, activities, and emotions are used for the actors to communicate with the viewer when it is actually the musicians who are doing the talking/singing.
Larry David's character is a good example of what NOT to do in communications. He does not conform to the norms of communication behavior and comes off as boorish and rude. This results in comedic effect but in real life, I would steer clear of this guy. He does not play by the same set of rules as the rest of us.
Expectancy Violations Theory
In the text the philosopher Immanuel Kant is brought up. According to the text Kant, believed that lying is wrong-always and that “He’d regard nonverbal deception the same way” (95). Watching the video clip of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar seems to make the opposite true. He finds telling the truth to be an almost unavoidable task that always results in negative results from others. Granted this movie is just that a movie, but when looking at my own daily life I think Kant’s philosophy of absolute truth seems it would not always have a potential reward for the communicator.
So the question of ethics comes into play, is it better to communicate with a white lie when a negative response is likely, or remain 100% honest all the time and risk the social juxtaposition it may receive?
Humorous side note: in the children’s book Go Dog Go (P.D. Eastman) there is a dog who asks another dog “do you like my hat”, this other dog replies “no, I do not like your hat”. Her facial expression shows she is experiencing some surprise and is upset by his answer. It seems she was expecting him to automatically reply with a “yes, I do like your hat”, which would have been perhaps a simple white lie to avoid the tension that followed after his answer.
I believe that it is better to remain honest when answering a question. If the truth is something a person doesn't want to hear, they wouldn't have asked. Also, there are tactful ways to present one's viewpoint to minimize any embarrasment it might cause.
Faustian bargaining and the left brain - I believe that the lastest technologies in mass communications offer something for everyone (except the devil). The internet offers visual, written and sound communications, which reaches more people because it appeals to different learning styles. I, for one, appreciate seeing a concept explained in one simple illustration (artist brain). Of course, this new "tribalism" can befuddle us if we do not keep our priorities in line. That's where Dr. Johann Georg Faust comes in - as a warning to the intrepid explorer.
Actually, Jesse, I was thinking the same thing. There was a more recent movie that came out, The Invention of Lying, that my wife really enjoyed.
It was rather the polar opposite of Liar Liar. Instead of the main character being the only one able to say only what was true, it is only the main character who can possibly lie. All the other people in the world in The Invention of Lying are incapable of lying. It leads to awkward moments, to say the least.
I think there's a truth buried in there somewhere that so-called verbal deceptions are not always the wrong thing to say. An especially poignant part of Invention is when the main character's mother is dying. The doctors and nurses, who cannot lie, tell her she is just going to die and be buried and there's nothing left to do so they're off to play golf. Instead of being so honest, the main character wants to tell her that she'll be alright and there's nothing to fear, so he "lies" and tells her that she's going to be just fine. It raises the question, which Kant would not agree with, that perhaps some verbal deception is the right and proper thing to say.
I just wanted to cover a couple things that were mentioned earlier. I hate using the same greeting when meeting someone, I often feel fake, and like a robot. I work in customer service and it is my job to say hello to people. I often try to say something different and change up the intros of communication. Often people are confused if I say something other than the standard hello, how are you? or Have a good day, or Have a nice day. One time at a Starbucks or someplace like that, they asked me Hi, How are you? I replied back Sh!tty, and they were completely lost for words, and they just looked at me and then said...Have a nice day! It was pretty funny in my eyes.
I love that Larry David says what is on his mind or the truth. We seem to be so awkward towards each other. His character just exemplifies this awkwardness. It make me laugh every time. I love that he is always politically incorrect.
Jared
Just a comment:
We have a radio talk show in LA where the DJ's sign off with "Be a good human" (Mark & Brian, KLOS). Sounds better to me than "Have a nice day" because it puts the listener in an active position (rather than waiting for the day to "happen").
Natalie,"be a good human being" leaves much to interpretation as a greeting.It sounds like someone is telling me to behave in a certain manner.I think it is much better have a positive greeting that can not be seen as judgemental.I thought the Tears for Fears class session was a good example of the various thoughts music bring out based on personal experiences.
Good point, Kevin. The DJ signoff could be interpreted as preachy. How about "Make it a great day"?
I think that while it is important to bring up the subject of being a good human being it is not the best way to leave someone at the end of a broadcast because it insinuates that they are not being a good human being which may make someone defensive if they don't know you personally or understand where you're coming from.
I'm a DJ also down at KBVR and I love to end my show with some cliche quote like "You Stay Classy Corvallis!" :) Yes its very outdated but it helps convey a message of "see you next time" and its a good tag line to end off with. Be a good human sounds a little to presumptuous to me.
"Liar Liar" is a good example of how kinesiology and verbal communications fall under the same umbrella. Once again, Jim Carrey masterfully combines the two.
Perhaps the epitome of the perfect liar is one who can effectively separate the two.
The Barthes theory that semiotics are deceptive because they "cannot be used to tell the truth" (Griffin, 323) seems confusing to me. If symbolism is representative, it is only deceptive in the sense that interpretation is subjective. For example, I still think of Tony Orlando and Dawn ('70's group) when I see a yellow ribbon. I do not equate it with war because the earlier rendition somehow stuck in my head. Even though I see this symbol used in other ways, it only means one thing to me. I have not embraced the secondary (connotative) meaning.
The Stafford and Canary survey (Griffin, 152) has a helpful set of recommendations for sustaining a relationship: Liking, trust, commitment and control mutuality. If most or all of these areas are doing well, you can be sure you are in a good relationship. (Some good advice for high school girls).
To continue with the discussion on Canary & Stafford's relationship maintenance research I'd like to add something. They noted that not much of there research is theory driven and that it comes down to "rewards and costs" but I believe Baxter & Montgomery are more in tune with the reality of relationships. Sure Canary & Stafford point out great attributes to a healthy relationship but they aren't figuring in the stress involved with every intimate relationship. This is were I lean toward Baxter & Montgomery's perspective on "rational dialectics" (chapter 12). They don't focus on the restoration of a relationship, rather they focus on the ability to cope with the stresses involved in every intimate relationship.
Probably do to my current situation, beginning couples counseling, I have found great interest in Baxter's five dialog strands (the Constitutive process, Dialectic flux, Aesthetic moment, Utterance and Critical sensibility). These five dialog strands illustrate the contradicting forces that are present in every intimate relationship and expose the interpersonal turbulence that comes with these relationships. I believe that it's not just about keeping the relationship the same but dealing with change thats important to identify.
This topic may just be to large to tackle but I welcome anyone with some insight to educate me on their feelings here.
.Relationship maintenance probably needs to be a subject we all focus more attention on.Control mutuality described by Canary and Stafford p152 is basically respecting the wishes of your partner.I cant agree with the last of their five interpersonal actions that contribute to long term relational satisfaction.I know many long term couples that are happy and respect each other. Although they share responsibility for chores and routine jobs,there is no way they work together on these chores..I also feel that giving your partner time apart to be an individual is important enough to make the list.
Ryan,
As I was reading ch. 12, I came across this line that really stuck out to me: "despite the fact that we tend to think of any kind of conflict as detrimental to our relationships, Baxter and Montgomery believe that these contradictions can be constructive. That's fortunate because these theorists are convinced that dialectics in relationships are inevitable" (156).
So here we have the idea of unavoidable conflict in all relationships, but a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak, when the perspective of receiving a positive constructive outcome in our relationships from these conflicts.
So it seams "keeping the relationship the same" is completely unrealistic. Not necessarily a bad thing but a relationship is not a stagnant object, it is in constant flux depending on the conflicts that arise (which are inevitable). I would say dealing with change is very important!
Natalie, So when are we gonna go out into town and meet all new people and use different responses to each person, this would be a fun task to try to not repeat yourself and see if you engage into more conversations then usually if you asked people the same question or response then you usually do when in public. I feel like it would be a completely different expierence...
That is a good Point that you just made Whittenm. I bet that different responses than the usual would open up new conversations with others. Most of us seem programed when in public, to respond to each other a certain way.
I found the section about self disclosure to be interesting because it is a fundamental concept when making new and keeping old relationships. We all have been through the process of self disclosure and know it is how we open our selves up to others. There are also many factors that play in to what we decide to disclose and to who we disclose the information.
In regards to CMC, computer-mediated-communication, the more on-line classes I take the more good and bad behavior I have encountered. Last quarter I had a discussion board that got really nasty when the professor let everyone just say what they wanted to say to one another. It is amazing how worked up people can get over the computer. I doubt people would have felt comfortable saying those things to one another in person if they had to sit in the classroom next to each other every week. I have mixed feelings on discussion boards. Sometimes they are helpful and sometimes they can be grueling.
I had another class that the teacher completely controlled all of the communication and actually cut people off when they tried to talk to one another. I don't see what the point of that it either. Any other thoughts on discussion boards? What seems to work, what doesn't?
I think an online class has a good discussion board when it is monitored by the instructor and clear rules are established at the beginning of the term. People do get comfortable with the anonymity of the web, so messages should be double-checked before they are sent out.
In one of the online lectures there was a discussion on nonverbal communication, specifically on head nodding for yes, and shaking for no. In the lecture it is mentioned that this is universally found. This made me think of a story that happened to me several years ago, when I was leading a workshop to a group of newly hired staff. I asked If everyone understood the topic at hand, and all nodded their heads to indicate yes, except for one girl who appeared to be shaking her head no. I asked if she had any questions, but she said she did not. Confused, I continued with the workshop. After a while, I once again asked if the group understood the next topic, and all nodded yes except for the one girl, who shook her head no again. I asked what she did not understand, and she confusedly said, "I do not have any questions". I asked why then was she shaking her head no to each my questions? to which she replied "I am shaking my head yes".
It turned out this girl was from India, where it is quite common to shake the head for yes, agreement, or understanding. Its not quite the same as shaking the head from side to side to indicate no, but rather "bobbling" the head from side to side. This is known as the "head bobble".
As I did not immediately grasp the meaning of this bobble, to me she was communicating the head shake for no.
It was an interesting lesson in how nonverbal communication can become lost in translation across cultures.
Interesting observation, Aaron. Its easy to overlook these cultural nuances but they are important in communications.
I just remembered a "cultural" communication error I made in a writing class I had last year. We had to make a power point and mine was on the "got milk" ad campaign. We had to describe what we were working on and I made comment about everyone knew of this advertisement already unless they had been living in a cave. Not a good thing to have said, which I realized after the fact. Someone mentioned that they were new to this country and did not know what I was talking about. I felt terribly and foolish because I had assumed everyone knew what I was talking about. It is important to take other cultures into account when you are communicating. I learned this the hard way!
Nonverbal communication is so important for many reasons because it takes more then words to create fulfilling strong relationships. When you respond to others with nonverbals it lets them know that you understand and care. On the contrary when you send confusing or negative non verbal signals the connection is lost, and so is any trust that was previously established. The human face is the focal point for nonverbal expression and is able to contort itself to thousands of different emotions. I find it interesting how so many misunderstandings occur between people because of elements such as these. The more you understand the concept the more you will be able to avoid making mistakes. This is why I find communication so intriguing and limitless in its possibility for growth and knowledge, especially the subject of nonverbal communication. I would love to hear more stories on people’s personal experiences.
In talking about electronic communication tied in with non-verbal communication, I have an anecdote I can share. When I was a teenager, I had a good sense of humor and was always cracking jokes, similar to the jokes I would see on TV. Once, I was involved in an email exchange with a good friend of mine who happened to be a girl. I wasn't all that in to in a romantic way, we were just friends. She asked me one day over the email what it was that guys thought about all day (I know, right?). I sent her an email jokingly saying things like "books, girls, puzzles, girls," etc. The girl's mother somehow saw the email and misinterpreted what I had said, and subsequently told her daughter to stay away from me because I was a creep! The thing that sticks out with me about this is the fact that had I been in the girl's presence (and her mother's, for that matter) they both would have picked up on the non-verbal clues I was giving and realize that it was a joke.
I learned quickly that non-verbals are an important part of communication in order for others to truly understand what is being communicated.
Dennis... interesting anecdote. Women tend to read between the lines. It's a challenge to be honest and tactful at the same time.
To add on to that story of nonverbal electronic communication I constantly find my self using emotes and exclamation points to complement text msgs. Its nearly imposable, I've found out, to show sarcasm in jokes without tacting on :-), or an lolzor!!!! at the end of your sentence.
Will, I do the same thing. I found it amusing that we use this form of hedging in cyberspace and texting. Instead of saying "just kidding," we say "JK." That's what I call providing an out for miscalculation.
My favorite theory this week is the social penetration theory. This might even explain why couples get "tired" of each other after time. Once they have reached the "center" of the "onion," there isn't much else to know about a person.
Of course peripheral items are disclosed more freely. We call this "small talk." It's interesting to me people sometimes cross these layers too quickly, maybe even skipping a layer. This happened to me when a new employee disclosed that she was unhappy in her personal life. Her frankness made me feel uncomfortable. Now I understand why.
I guess it is human nature that a speaker's credibility (i.e., expert) can "stretch the hearer's latitude of acceptance." We should avail ourselves to educated opinions. We must be careful, however, that we do not allow the "expert" to think for us.
I agree with ESME that non verbal communication is interesting.Watch the facial expression and body language change with a store clerk based on the customer.If it is a male store clerk and a beautiful woman approaches the smile and open body language appears.Contrast that to when an old man approaches the same clerk.I think we could all tell the mood our father was in without him saying a word.His gestures and expressions let me know if I should stay clear or not.
I have taught this class (both on-line and live) for a number of the years. Social Penetration theory has been one of the most popular in the course. There may be a variety of explanations for its popularity. Your thoughts?
Kevin: I come across people who are frowning or scowling sometimes. I notice that if I smile at them, many times they smile back. It doesn't always work, but its nice when it does.
ProfWalk it is easy to see why.My father has always told me that it is all about relationships.No matter how good you are at a job, if you do not have a good relationship with your boss and coworkers,you will probably not be successful.This theory examines a lot of the principles and reasons that help create good relationships.I have found self disclosure especially good at breaking down barriers and opening up conversation.
self disclosure can be useful in some circumstances, for example equal level colleagues, but a CEO typically won't be so conversational to the mail clerk. There is a tricky line between becoming friendly with staff and maintaining enough distance to manage effectively. I suppose each company defines its own culture in this regard.
I was thinking that in honor of the Super Bowl and the accompanying ads, we should nominate the elaboration likelihood theory of communication for the theory of the week. Given all the ads relying on the peripheral concepts of the elaboration likelihood theory. With the Megan Fox commercial, it almost screams, like the textbook says, "Love me, love my" (cellphone).
Just a thought.
Dennis
I think we have all had experiences where people have crossed the line of familiarity in a relationship, or had boundary issues. Social Penetration Theory does a great job of explaining why this may happen and what makes for a comfortable relationship. Another concept of this theory, the cost-benefit factor is easy to relate to as well. We all make decisions about new relationships based on what they mean to us and how much effort we choose to put into them.
In group decision-making, considering that group members influence each other, I wonder how a decision would be different if decided online instead of in person? In a perfect world, we would have the "ideal speech situation," but in reality, the effective debater can sway a group's decision (just look at how the jury works).
I also realized that the fundamentals of group decision-making can easily be applied to the individual. Forcing oneself to come to a decision based on logical steps seems fair and objective.
Let's hear it for taking responsibility for the dynamics of a group you are part of! This aspect of Poole's theory is accurate but often overlooked. If some people realized the implications of their own actions (or non-actions), they might be surprised at how much they influenced others (active agents).
By definition of the term, group "dynamics" are prone to shifts and changes. The intricacies of "structuration," with its rules and resources, affirms that dynamism.
As to "how should we then live"? I prefer the condensed version seen on a poster in my boss's office: A row of walking ducklings with the caption, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."
I wanted to comment on this weeks slides of Group Think and the Decision Emergence Theory. The four phases seem to fit right into what actually occurs in group decision making. First is the orientation mode of the group, then the conflict issues that occur amoungst the various members. Then the emergence of the idea comes forth from the group ideas. Finally, is the reinforcement stage where the final decision is made and the group process is over. Overall that seems about right. It is nice to see how this process can be broken down and full understood.
Jared
My opinion on the concept of social penetration theory being popular in these classes has to do with the college atmosphere. In our time as college students in our late teens and early twenties we are searching for a group of friends that will likely stay with us for much of our lives. We have, in most cases, now moved away from home and are beginning the rest of our lives. So while at college we meet new people and begin to disclose more and more personal information to them as we get to know them better and better. Thus fulfilling the theory of social penetration. I will be getting start this process all over again as I am soon transferring to a new college so it is especially interesting to me. I've been moving around all my life and experiencing the same feeling that has now been explained to me in a philosophical, and logical definition.
"Let's hear it for taking responsibility for the dynamics of a group you are part of! This aspect of Poole's theory is accurate but often overlooked. If some people realized the implications of their own actions (or non-actions), they might be surprised at how much they influenced others (active agents)." -Natalie
I second that notion Natalie...
There really is a lot of individual power with in the group. I took a theory class last term in sociology and one theory used a baby's mobile to explain how it worked...
It would seem that that the mobile analogy would work here for the group decision making theories. Basically how it works is when one item on the mobile moves, the others are affected and they move then as well. When none of the individual items on the mobile move the other do not either.
So if we imagine a group as a baby's mobile and each individual member as an item or unit on the mobile, if one member becomes an active agent (moves on the mobile) it will cause others to move as well. Groups are really a fluid thing!
Interesting analogy with the image of the mobile for group think. I was considering the group think ideas and comparing them to meetings I've experienced (and frequently have) at the law office where I work. The roles are really clearly defined, but I would say that the conflict is a unique aspect, with the lawyers being ultimate decision makers, they can curtail or enhance the conflict that develops. Some lawyers think the conflict is the breeding ground for good ideas, others avoid it strenuously, I've learned.
Yeah i believe the collge atmosphere and social penetration are very closly tied together. Each year i have lived with different roomates and at the beginning of the year all of guys in the house dont have that true closeness and each person has a side of superficial to them. Not in a rude way but because the relationship is not that intimate compared to after living together all year and the gradual advances in communication and closeness. Slowly more and more is revealed. This closeness of relationships throughout the year is a great of example of social penetration through living with new roomates.
I moved four times in my first five years of school.It always took a while to feel comfortable in each move.Little did i know the theory of social penetration was at work here.I was very guarded until I found someone who shared the same likes and dislikes.I guess this was a form of self disclosure between us.I agree with Whittenm that the college atmosphere lends itself to the study of this theory.I think the uncomfortable feeling I get around new roomates goes back to the negative memories of always being the new kid in class.I find myself hanging around the same group and not really liking change.
There was an interesting article online MSNBC.com this week about online relationships It is a good takeoff from the Social Information Processing Theory.The new word for this is"elationship". On line dating usually led to a face to face meeting at some point.Now there are many people who are content with the elationship and never want a face to face meeting with the other person.For many it seems to be a way of passing time not really looking for a touching relationship.Ther is a much lower risk factor and you can be whoever you want in an elationship.A new word (cyber-harem)is used for men who have many female elationships.
Eletionship is a great word used to describe online interactions. Currently in my comm218 class we are putting this theory to work by being assigned a secret online pen pal to interact with a few times a week. This is a very non threatening way to grow the relationship and diverage information without the pressure of a face to face meeting. It will be interesting to see who you are paired up with and how they match up with the person you envision.
Will - what a great experiment in elationships. I would be curious to know how it turns out.
Systems of shared meaning are never primitive, no matter what the culture. A person's ability to understand and respect these differences is what sets the civilized apart from the uncivilized.
The metaphor idea comes into play when I think of work. We always have an end-of-day meeting. If our students behaved, we are "fuzzy" and if they were challenging, we are "not fuzzy." These terms are always confusing to new employees, especially the men, who feel their beards when we ask them if they are "fuzzy."
The dime-on-the-wall practice at Dixie serves to show that the management cares about the employees. I wish more companies adopted that attitude.
Ahh.
I like that concept of elationship. That seems to fit in well with our current mode of communication online through facebook, myspace, texting, and blogging and on and on. Many people do have relationships with others on an online aspect only. They may not meet each other or have any face to face meetings. The only contact is online. This makes me think about a couple of instances of people I know from facebook that were extremely shy and timid when we met face to face. We mainly talked to each other only online and when we saw each other in the world it was a bit weird. We had a elationship in my mind.
Dating someone only online and not meeting face to face seems a bit odd in my eyes.
Jared
Group dynamics are very interesting to observe.Some people who are introverts feel very comfortable in a group setting and are outspoken.I also agree with Natalie that a great orator can sway the group to their position.The credibility of a person also plays a role.Regardless of the validity of the arguement it is hard for a person perceived in a negative way to be persuasive.
Sometimes an orator uses shocking or offensive comments to gain the attention of an audience. In this case its not the orator who wants to be viewed positively, but he wants his message to be received.
An elationship without ever trying to meet seems odd. I only participated in online dating to meet someone in person. I guess we have elationships here with our peers but that is about the only place for me. I will tell you that it’s easy to misrepresent who you are in the cyber world though. The online dating thing was really disappointing for me. And as far as the class blogs, we are generally steered into conversations and responses by our teachers. So while we may have our own opinions of things, we respond to get the praise of our superiors.
gsully, when "we respond to get the praise of our superiors," you could also say, "when two people from different ethnic or cultureal gourps interact, they tend to accommodate each other in the way they speak in order to gain the other's approval" a la Giles (p. 387). I guess we do this online as well as in person.
The intergenerational communication gap will always exist ("divergence is the norm" [390]). This is not a bad thing, but something we should keep in mind when conversing with others.
We all have a need to be distinct as well as to belong to a group. Divergence is not a negative thing; it serves the purpose of distinction.
As for overaccommodating the elderly, it is difficult for me not to overaccommodate with an elderly acquiantance who 1)cannot dress herself, 2)has no concept of the day/date and 3)forgets who she is phoning and why she is phoning them. Attempting to have a "normal" conversation leads to frustration on both sides because my elderly friend does not understand my words.
I found chapter 32 to be a bit confusing. The data sets at the end of the chapter are too simplistic. In his efforts to prove his theory, it seems that Mr. Phlipsen has overlooked the nuances of these two cultures. There are many layers to every culture. I understand that Mr. Philipsen was doing a comparison, but Teamsters are not all thugs and Naciremas are not all scholars.
I'm not sure who "Each of You" is, but I'll try to respond. What might seem like a hurried generalization from Philipsen might just be the author of the text, Griffin, summarizing as best he can. The principles that Philipsen came up with seem to be to be general but not too specific, meaning there's probably some room for interpretation within the terms Nacirema and Teamster. Just a thought.
Dennis
Sorry about the typo in the post above. It's what I get for reading/posting while making dinner!
It's supposed to read: "seem to me to be general" etc.
Dennis
It's refreshing to see that some cultures consider obliging and avoiding conflict as a good thing, intended to maintain mutual-face interests (407). I was always told it was cowardly, but I disagree.
"When Harry Met Sally" is a great example of genderlect styles in communication. Harry can't help communicating like a man; Sally like a woman. Their genders provide their worldviews and motivations.
The cooperative overlap described on p. 434 reminds me of a co-worker who does not partake in this female show of support. I never know if she agrees or disagrees with me. I guess I am used to getting this type of feedback and I rely on it to make sure a message is understood.
Then the old double standard comes into play because I don't expect the same behaviors from my male boss.
I didn't even realize I was doing this until I read Chapter 33.
Another note on Social Penetration Theory:
One way that the internet compromises communications rules (via personal networking profiles) is that the person is revealing a lot about his/herself without receiving input from the viewer. This is akin to slicing right into the middle of that onion before peeling the outer layers - the inner part is exposed too soon and there is no reciprocation. One might as well run naked down the street.
I have always kinda liked the movie “When Harry Met Sally.” I know the movie may be perceived as a chick flick, and I kinda think it is to. I seem to like the banter that goes back and forth between the two characters in the movie. It shows the difference in thinking and communication that men and women share. This does fit right into chapter 33 about genderlect styles. Women seek connection while men seek status. Interesting stuff to think about, and can be useful.
Jared
I would like to add to the discussion of Chapter 32. Nacirema ,is supposed to be referring to “majority of Americans” (415). I see the discrepancy here, there are so many sub-cultures with in the US that have very different speech codes. I think this is because America is geographically large and is more or less a melting pot of various cultures from around the world.
I think that it would be more accurate to classify Nacirema’s not as the majority but as a specific group such as west coasters or something not so general.
Has any one found any evidence in the text that supports his claim of Nacirema using the generalized US conversational language, other than Phil Donahue?
I would like to comment on chapter 32 also.The speech code theory is less relevant with the mass media that has brought the various parts of the country together in both culture and communication.I have lived in various parts of the country and see very little of what Phillipsen describes as Nacirema.I do think that children are influenced at first by their family and community but that changes very early on because of television and the Internet.Where i do see a cultural and communication < speech code> difference is between the inter cities of our country and the suburbs or rural areas.The culture and communication of the intercity of Boston,Oakland,New Orleans,or Phoenix are all very similar.It is however very different from the rest of the population.
I feel that Philipsen has some very good theories on communication. Although I dont believe if I were assessing communication I would think on the same level as he does, I still understand everything he states and can see it working in my everyday communication with people. Being an athlete I know people from all over the country and have done my fair share of traveling. I have noticed how especially how propositions 2 through 4 apply to people everywhere and in every culture.
I agree with what's been said before. The modern age of mass communication has blurred some of the superficial lines of communication, but there are deeper communication aspects that have not been blended. There's still metacommunication that happens (though I haven't seen it enough). One just has to check the comments section on an international news story to get a sense of the differing points of view and communication groups of the various posting people.
I have a link to share regarding Chapter 27: Cultivation Theory. This news article has some bearing on the environment of violence we are exposed to.
http://www.kcci.com/health/22709760/detail.html
I wonder what would happen if we gave some folks newspapers with upbeat headlines and some folks newspapers with negative headlines. Even though the articles covered the same topics, people reading the positive headlines would feel better about the news (I believe). What do you think?
The intermedia effect is so reliable that one need only view a single news program to know what is on the other news channels. I am referring to internet news as well.
I have always wondered why our media focuses so much on negative stories. Plenty of good things are happening around the world by caring people but most of the coverage goes to criminals, politicians and celebrities (okay, I know the first two are interchangeable).
Is this an example of framing or media malady effect?
Ch. 28 Agenda Setting Theory
Media malady effect- Negative economic headlines and stories that depress consumer sentiment and leading economic indicators.
I think that the media shows us the depressing things over the positive things going on in the world for a few reasons and media malady seems to be one of them. The economy's in the crapper, schools have no money, there were 3 shootings last week... these are all recent headlines. I think a possible cause is to look at the media behavioral effect. How do we react to all this negative news?
I also think that negative things just stick out more prominently than the positives.
On another note propaganda comes to mind when reading Ch. 28
Deetz’ theory of corporate democracy is something to hope for but most likely not found. The key that is missing in most places is the common goals. It is near impossible to get everyone on the same page at once. I have friends that are managers in the IT filed that have as close to a corporate democracy as I have found. They have no raises but annual bonuses based upon company success, success in economics. I have not discussed with him what happens as a consequence of this practice such as unknown employee corners being cut or things being pushed under the carpet and hidden from upper management. While it sounds like a great motivating idea, at the same time it may create risks that jeopardize the safety of the employees as well as the consumer. I will have to speak with them further about this.
negative information is more sensational in the news. People are more interested when something goes wrong or is shocking. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. This is somewhat discussed in Ch.7 for expectations violations theory; when someones expectations are violated suddenly, they tend to notice more, i.e. sell more newspapers.
Along with what everyone else has been saying, I think that the news should change more of their stories to feature positive stories that are happening than negative. I watch the news every now and then but can't stand all of the negative brainwashing that goes on. Why not focus on the good things or stories that may uplift people instead of drag them down or freak them out. I don't want to hear about the rape, or murder, or troubled economy and on and on! I want a positive picture painted of what is happening in my community, and I think that would do more good than negative news! Chapter 24 touches on this subject of media ecology and how the media paints our world for us.
Jared
The media focuses on negative issues because that is what attracts interest.I think a lot of people enjoy finding out that there are people worse off than they are.Misery loves company.Look at all the negative press about Tiger Woods.Does the media reflect culture or is it the other way around.An mild outbreak of flu in Mexico was greatly exaggerated by the American media to the point that American tourist stopped going.The economy of the Mexican beach cities was devastated for no real reason but an overzealous media selling a story of interst.
I agree, media does sell stories about death and destruction because it catches peoples interest. If the news played all positive information all the time I highly doubt that people would keep watching it. If everything is going well why do we need to see the news. We watch newscasts for the negative events so we can make sure it doesn't happen to us, or so we can poke fun at those who the negative reporting is directed at. Humans are generally not focused on being nice so why would we want to watch television that portrayed all good things?
I believe the news media is negative because that is what sells. We live in a free commerce society and profits are the ultimate driving force. The news stories that are chosen to be reported are chosen for revenue in the end. How many times have you seen a movie that included the media as a setting such as news paper television and an actor as the chief would say that “this story is not good enough for the front page or tonight’s show.” There is a good movie about the influence of the media and the American media in general over the world called “Chronicas.” It is set in Central America. Some American journalists are there and happen to witness a car accident where the victim becomes the accused. The Americans twist and publish a story to get him freed, but all the while the local government has discovered that the accused is actually a serial killer. So despite the local governments findings, the man is released due to political pressure caused be the American press.
Re. Cultivation theory lecture
Pornography #1, gambling #2 and investing #3? Boy, are our priorities messed up!
Re: Violence and sex on t.v. and video games. I had a neighbor with four young boys who said it was perfectly fine for them to violently "kill" people on video games "as long as there wasn't any sex."
I kind of scratched my head at this comment. Your thoughts?
Favorite quotes of the week:
Re. the new tribalism of the technological age - "Privacy is either a luxury or a curse of the past" (p. 317).
Re. intercultural communication - "The primary function of discourse is to make meaning" (p. 337).
Re. cultivation studies - "Fear of violence is a paralyzing emotion" (p. 357).
Re. agenda-setting - "We judge as important what the media judge as important" (p. 359).
Re. television - "Oh I know the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town" (p. 375).
Bringing the theories of the book into a more internet-driven age, we can also argue that, similar to the agenda-setting theory, the mass media (in terms of sites like YouTube, Google, and such) that the media controls what we judge as important by how many "hits" a site has, or how many times a YouTube video has been seen. It's almost like a mix of mass media agenda-setting and herd mentality. I find that disturbing. If the only value of a video is that millions have watched it, is it something I need to watch? Mass media says so.
"I have always wondered why our media focuses so much on negative stories. Plenty of good things are happening around the world by caring people but most of the coverage goes to criminals, politicians and celebrities (okay, I know the first two are interchangeable).
Is this an example of framing or media malady effect?"
I think that the negative images on the media are related to both framing and media malady effect. I think that media malady effect is trying to say that negative economic news (the economy is failing!) will lead people to make decisions based on that framed story, thereby adding to the overall problem. On the other hand, if the news emphasized positive stories, the positive economic indicators would also (probably) rise, as well. I think what the malady theory is trying to say is that the media, by reporting negativity, can bring about more negativity. The framing comes from isolating and emphasizing the negativity and telling us what priority or emphasis to put on what the media prioritizes or emphasizes. If that makes any sense.
I agree with gsully54 on your view of corporate democracy.Employees would have a real voice in how decisions were made that impacted the future of their company.They would feel like they were important and be motivated to perform at a high level.Unfortunately the business world now requires instant decisions that cant always wait for the dynamics of corporate democracy. The CEO is tasked with maximizing profits for the share holders not making everyone feel warm and fuzzy.The last phase of this model was probably companies that did employee ownership models like United Airlines.The employees agreed to wage and benefit concessions for stock in the company and having representatives on the executive committee.United went into bankruptcy a few years later.The stock was worthless and the company was reorganized in the traditional CEO model .
I quite enjoyed reading about the cultural communication theories, as it relates specifically to my life (I live abroad).
Sometimes the simplest (or what we would consider simple) phrase in English can be baffling to a non English speaker. for example, someone recently asked me what the phrase "work out" meant, and why we dont just say "exercise". I didn't have an answer!
This blog keeps spinning around. Spin, spin, spin.
I can only guess that this is some sort of communication experiment. How far away from our class can we go?
I found the Face Negotiation Theory very interesting.I never thought about being from a individualistic culture but we really are.Look how hard it is to get people to use carpool.Americans want the independence to come and go when they want.We rarely think about what is best for the group but only what is best for me.It is more important to win the game than it is to play the game.We can learn a lot from looking at other cultures. I have always found Asians very accommodating and easy to get along with.This chapter shed some light on why this could be.
Re: Violence and sex on t.v. and video games. I had a neighbor with four young boys who said it was perfectly fine for them to violently "kill" people on video games "as long as there wasn't any sex."
I kind of scratched my head at this comment. Your thoughts?
There was a similar situation in my house growing up, Dad thought it was okay for kids to watch crass sexual humor stand up comedy, grandpa thought that was very inappropriate, violence okay though.
I could argue generational differences, but there does seem to be a generally socially accepted amount of violence in our media, toys, games etc.. and less acceptance of sex.
but really they are like apples and oranges the only thing they have in common is that they both have a negative connotation attached to them, specifically when referring to youth.
I think this has to do with the overall society's acceptance of violence; it's in movies, cartoons, has been the basis of popular child games (cops & robbers). We seem to be saying, yes violence is okay.
I am commenting on the earlier post about Jim Carrey's video. I always find myself saying the same phrases while communicating with others. This goes beyond verbal communication, it happens with texting and emailing. I hear my teachers speaking so eloquently but it seems that most of our generation is using repetitive phrases too often and we need to broaden what we say.
Face Negotiation Theory should be taught to businessmen who travel to Asia. Like Kevin mentioned, the theory sheds some light on why some cultures communicate the way they do.
My husband recently visited China on business and was amazed at the civility and politeness of everyone he encountered.
I've had some interesting encounters with face negotiation theory when dealing with one of my business partners. Just as you said asian culture has a very different view than americans. Ive worked at my club with a DJ who is Korean. He could take the normal approach and try to get whats best for him, but he always seems very interested in making the whole business prosper at every aspect and every individual. Kind of noble if you ask me, but can get you into trouble in a free market economy such as ours where there are many cutthroat businessmen.
Awhile back I touched on how my comm218 class had us match up with someone in the class and send annonomous emails back and fourth before getting to know eachother in person. It was interesting to find out that many of my partners characteristics and personality traits were successfully transmitted through this online interface. What I noticed was that by communicating through this medium first it greatly added to the comfort level and made it much more easy to interact when we finally did meet up face to face. It was nice to knock out the first two stages of Knapp's model online so that we could bypass most of the clichés that generally come first in any new meeting. glad we had this opportunity to set the ground work because this allowed for a much deeper connection when we first met up in person.
I was surprised that many of the theories discussed in the book were essentially outdated due to new technology. It is interesting how this can have such a huge impact on how we communicate. In the online classes I have been taking over the last few years I think that I have been getting a little jaded because people don't seem to care what they say when they don't have to get to know you personally. It is truly a different way to communicate than in a real classroom. I am feeling like I a missing something from my online classes in regards to communication.
I agree with chris that there is something missing from an online communication class. Personal face to face communication is very important in developing your skills. It is easy to write emails and posts back and fourth. Improvising and quick thinking comes from face to face communication though. I do find, however, that when I am doing something like peer review for example in writing classes i find that online it is much easier to say everything to the person. If I am reviewing a paper that really is bad I dont have any problems with telling the person they need to work on it alot because it isnt good. This way you dont ever have to worry about animosity between you and fellow classmates. It is interesting how online classes and ones in the classroom have different benefits and drawbacks
To go off what Matt said it would be interesting to meet up with one of you and see how the identity that comes out during online interaction matches up with the person you are face to face. Most of the time you can make general assumptions about a person based on the writing styles punctuation and dialect but these won’t always hold true.
I think meeting a person face to face is really the only way to test true communication skills. I might use good grammar in written documents and blogs, but in person I am going to use the most slang you have ever heard most likely. Written communication seems to often have a more formal aura associated with it, and limits true interaction.
All,
Interesting thoughts about face to face communications. I have always thought that there was a special method of communicating face to face that is absent in communicating in any other media, and that is the fact that the facial expressions and tone of voice are difficult to control. In written emails, texts, and letters, there is always a chance to let the words hang on the page for a few seconds to see how they look. With face to face communication, I find it troubling sometimes the things I say that I regret as soon as I've said them. Written communication does not seem to have such a tendency. I think that would make people tend to have a more coherent written communication scheme than not.
regarding face to face communication, SIP (social information processing theory) discusses the instinctual reaction to responses as opposed to the more well though out text exchange of CMC.
Additionally, interpersonal deception theory suggests that deceptions are more easily carried out in CMC due to the fact that deceivers have more time to craft deception, and less channels of communication to worry about, thus avoiding cognitive overload.
I have really enjoyed the discussion on this part of the blog. I appreciate your interactions with one another and the thoughtfulness of your comments.
This is probably the last time I will use the blog in COMM 321 ecampus. The ecampus authorities tell me that a public blog may go against student privacy guidelines.
Post a Comment