Test 1 Flashcards
Focus of URT
how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding
Social penetration theory
(unlike URT) tries to forecast the future of a relationship on the basis of projected rewards and costs
Central to Uncertainty Reduction
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
Berger believes that our drive to reduce uncertainty comes from 3 prior conditions
- anticipation of future interaction: you know you will see them again
- Incentive value: they have something you want
- deviance: they act in a weird way
Berger believes that the main reason we talk to people is
to make sense of our interpersonal world
Berger focuses on predictability
which is the opposite of uncertainty, “As the ability of persons to predict which alternative or alternatives are likely to occur next decreases, uncertainty increases”
Fritz Heider
father of attribution theory, influenced Berger, viewed people as intuitive psychologists
attribution theory
a systematic explanation of how people draw inferences about the character of others based upon observed behavior, we constantly draw inferences about why people do what they do, we feel the constant need to predict and explain.
Official Uncertainty Reduction defintion (.110)
Increased Knowledge of what kind of person another is, which provides an improved forecast of how a future interaction will turn out
Two kinds of uncertainty
1) Behavioral questions: accepted procedural protocols to ease the stress that behavioral uncertainty can cause
ex: shake hands? who pays for meal? can you pet their dog?
2) Cognitive questions: aimed at discovering who the other person is as a unique individual
ex: What do they like about their job? What makes them happy/sad? Do they have many friends?
Berger’s theory addresses
cognitive rather than behavioral uncertainty, reducing cognitive uncertainty means acquiring information that allows you to eliminate many possibilities you have in mind
Axiom
self-evident truths that requires no additional proof
ex: all people are created equal, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, what goes up must come down
Berger’s 8 truths (axioms) about initial uncertainty
Axiom 1: Verbal COM Axiom 2: Nonverbal warmth Axiom 3: Information seeking Axiom 4: Self-disclosure Axiom 5: Reciprocity Axiom 6: Similarity Axiom 7: Liking Axiom 8: Shared Networks
Axiom 1: Verbal COM
as the amount of verbal com between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty will decrease-as uncertainty is further and further reduced, verbal communication will continue to increase
Axiom 2: Nonverbal Warmth
In an initial interaction, as nonverbal expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease-decreases in uncertainty level will cause increases in nonverbal expressiveness
ex: prolonged eye contact, forward body lean, and pleasant tone of voice
Axiom 3: Information Seeking
High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior-as uncertainty declines, information-seeking will decrease
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
- Berger equates intimacy of COM with depth of self-disclosure
- Intimacy: attitudes, values, and feelings
- Most people wait to disclose intimate details until they have an idea of what the listener’s response will be
Axiom 5: Reciprocity
- high levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity-low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity
- When knowledge of each other is minimal, we’re careful not to let the other person one-up us, however, when we already know personal information an even flow of information seems less crucial
- People tend to reveal personal details at the same rate of their partner’s
- Reciprocal vulnerability is most important in the early stages of a relationship, as it seems to be an issue of power
Axiom 6: Similarity
similarities reduce uncertainty-dissimilarities cause increase in uncertainty
Axiom 7: Liking
- Increases in uncertainty cause decreases in liking-decreases in uncertainty cause increases in liking
- the more you find out, the more you’ll appreciate and accept the person
- “to know her is to lover her”
- contradicts the opinion “familiarity breeds contempt”
Axiom 8: Shared Networks
Shared COM networks reduce uncertainty-lack of shared networks increase uncertainty
-This axiom was not part of Berger’s original theory
Parks and Adelman discovered that men and women who communicate more often with their partners, family, and friends have less uncertainty about the person they love than do those whose relationships exist in relative isolation
-Networking couples tend to stay together
Theorem
- a proposition that logically and necessarily follows from two axioms; pairing two axioms together to produce additional insight into relational dynamics
- combined axioms are inserted in the pattern of deductive logic
deductive logic
If a=b
and b=c
then a=c
ex:
If similarity reduces uncertainty (ax.6)
and reduced uncertainty increases liking (ax.7)
Then similarity and liking are positively related (theorem 21)
Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory
-28 theorems
select one axiom on the bottom and side, the intersection shows the number of the theorem and the type of correlation
- (+) sign: two variables rise or fall together
- (-) sign: as one variable increases, the other decreases
Berger believes that most social interaction is
- goal-driven
- we have reasons for saying what we say
“A Plan-Based Theory of Strategic Communication”
- Berger explained how we communication to reduce uncertainty
- was convinced we continually construct cognitive plans to guide our communication
- Berger defined plans as mental representations of action sequences that may be used to achieve goals
- we have a goal and an overall strategy to reach it
Berger uses “Overall” strategy
because he claims that plans are hierarchically organized with abstract action representations at the top of the hierarchy and progressively more concrete representations towards the bottom.
Berger believes that uncertainty is central to
- all social interaction: the probability of perfect communication is zero
- developed strategies that explain how people cope with inevitable uncertainties
Four approaches we can use to reduce uncertainty with information seeking
passive strategy
active strategy
interactive strategy
extractive strategy
passive strategy
- unobtrusively observe others from a distance
- fly-on-the-wall tactic works best when we spot others reacting to people in informal, or “backstage” settings
- *Impression formation by observing a person interacting with others**
active strategy
- ask a third party for information
- mutual acquaintance will probably be biased, but we can filter that out and gain valuable information
- *Impression formation by asking a third party about a person**
interactive strategy
- face-to-face and ask specific questions
- quickest route to reducing uncertainty
- can end up feeling like a cross-examination or the third degree
- self-disclosure can help elicit information from others without seeming to pry
- *Impression formation through face-to-face discussion with a person**
extractive strategy
- search for information online
- not part of Berger’s original three strategies
- unobtrusive process that allows us to conduct our own personalized background check
- *Impression formation by searching the internet for information about a person**
Plan complexity
- a characteristic of a message plan based on the level of detail it provides and the number of contingencies it covers
- measured in two ways: level of detail and number of contingency plans in case the original doesn’t work
- high uncertainty argues for less complex plan that you can adjust in the moment, once you become more comfortable
- simpler approach is also preferred because a complex plan takes so much cognitive effort that there may be a deterioration in verbal and nonverbal fluency, which results in loss of credibility
Hedging
-Use of strategic ambiguity and humor to provide a way for both parties to save face when a message fails to achieve its goal
Hierarchy hypothesis
- the prediction that when people are thwarted in their attempts to achieve goals, their first tendency is to alter lower-level elements of their message
- when a person has failed to grasp what we are saying, our inclination is to repeat the message louder
- additional hedge against failure is to practice in front of a friend who will critique your action plan before you put it into effect
Berger describes people as “cognitive misers”
people who would rather try to a quick fix than expend the effort to repair faulty plans
Relational Uncertainty (Leanne Knobloch)
- doubts about our own thoughts, the thoughts of the other person, or the future of the relationship
- ongoing relationships have uncertainty
partner interference
-occurs when a relational partner hinders goals, plans, and activities
Knobloch believes uncertainty leads close partners to experience
- relational turbulence: negative emotions arising from perceived problems in a close relationship
- makes us more reactive or sensitive to our partner’s actions
- Knobloch has focused more on diagnosing the causes and symptoms of relational uncertainty rather than finding a cure
- Interactive strategy may help resolve issue
- more likely to talk directily when intimacy and power are equal, this provides stability in relational turbulence
Critics often point to theorem 17
- predicts the more you like people, the less you’ll seek information about them
- more reasonable to suggest that you will seek more information from those you like as opposed to those you dislike
- dictated by axioms 3 and 7, if the theorem is wrong, one of the axioms is wrong
Kellerman targets axiom 3 (critque of th.17)
- axiom 3 assumes that lack of information triggers a search for knowledge
- wanting knowledge rather than lacking knowledge is what motivates information-seeking
Kellerman and Reynolds
- failed to find that anticipated future interaction, incentive value, or deviance gave any motivation to seek information
- Berger’s suggestion of a universal drive to reduce uncertainty during initial interaction is questionable
Sunnafrank (critique)
- insists that the early course of a relationship is guided by its predicted outcome value (POV: future benefits and costs)
- primary goal of our initial interaction is maximizing our relational outcomes rather than finding out who they are
Berger v. Sunnafrank
Walid afifi
- believes all theories are too narrow
- motivated information management: we are motivated to reduce anxiety rather than uncertainty, when uncertainty doesn’t make us anxious, we won’t seek to reduce it.
Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational dialectics
social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies.
Relational dialectics
- highlight the tension, struggle, and general messiness of close personal ties.
- best way we can grasp relational dialectics is to look at a narrative in which competing discourses are etched in bold relief
Baxter and Montgomery caution us
not to look at demographics or personal traits when we want to understand close relationships
contradiction
- the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions
- formed whenever two tendencies or forces are interdependent yet mutually negate one another
- a core concept of relational dialectics
From a relational dialectics perspective
bonding occurs in both interdependence with the other and independence from the other, one without the other diminishes the relationship.
Mikhail Bakhtin
- Baxter and Mont. draw heavily from him
- saw dialectical tension as the deep structure of all human experience
- forces pull you together and apart
Relationships are
always in flux, the only certainty is certain change
dialectical tension provides an opportunity for dialogue, an occasion when partners could work out ways to mutually embrace the conflict between unity with and differentiation from each other
Bakhtin
dialectical tension can be seen as
a metaphor where COM exerts simultaneous pulls on both ends of a taut line-a relational rope under tension
When Baxter uses the term relational dialectics, she is not referring to being of two minds
the cognitive dilemma within the head of an individual who is grappling with conflicting desires
Baxter’s relational dialectics describes
-the contradictions that are located in the relationship between parties, produced and reproduced through the parties’ joint communicative activity
Dialectic tension
- natural product or unavoidable result of our conversations rather than the motive force guiding what we say in them
- Baxter and Mont. believe these contradictions can be constructive
Three relational dialectics
- integration-separation
- stability-change
- expression-nonexpression
three dialects can be experienced in two different contexts
- internal dialectic: tensions within a relationship
2. external dialectic: tensions between a couple and their community
Integration-separation
- a class of relational dialectics that includes connection-autonomy, inclusion-seclusion, and intimacy-independence
- contradiction between connection-autonomy as a primary strain within all relationships
- if one side wins, the relationship looses
- dilemma between inclusion with outsiders and seclusion for themselves
No relationship can exist by definition unless
the parties sacrifice some individual autonomy. However, too much connection paradoxically destroys the relationship because the individual identities become lost.
Stability-Change
-a class of relational dialectics that includes certainty-uncertainty, conventionality-uniqueness, predictability-surprise, and routine-novelty
Expression-nonexpression
- a class of relational dialectics that includes openness-closedness, revelation-concealment, candor-secrecy, and transparency-privacy
- pressures for openness and closedness wax and wane like phases of the moon, in a cyclical fashion
revelation-concealment
- from expression-nonexpression
- dilemma of what to tell others
Dialogue
communication that is constitutive, always in flux, capable of achieving aesthetic moments
Constitutive dialogue
- communication that creates, sustains, and alters relationships and the social world; social construction
- asks how COM defines defines or constructs the social world, including ourselves and personal relationships
Constitutive approach
suggests that communication creates and sustains the relationship. If communication practices change, so does the relationship.
Dialogic view
- in contrast with constitutive dialogue
- considers differences to be just as important as similarities and claims that both are created and evaluated through a couple’s dialogue
utterance
-what a person says in one conversational turn
utterance chains
- the central building blocks of meaning-making, where utterances are linked to competing discourses already heard well as those yet to be spoken
- utterance is embedded in an utterance chain that includes things heard in the past and responses anticipated in the future
Four links on utterance chain
- cultural ideologies
- relational history
- not-yet spoken response of partner to utterance
- normative evaluation of third party to utterance
cultural ideologies
- usually from past
- collectivism: follow the rules and traditions of your family
- individualism: it is your choice
- romanticism: do what you love
- rationalism: don’t be impulsive
Relational history
- from immediate past
- one could be a friend, teammate, co-conspirator, or rival
Not-yet spoken response
- immediate future
- response from listener
Normative evaluation of third party
- further in future
- response from third party’s outside the situation
Baxter regards the utterance chain as
the basic building block in the construction project of creating meaning through dialogue
Dialectical flux
the unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate nature of personal relationships
Baxter believes that simultaneous expression of opposing voices
- is the exception rather than the rule
- at any given time most relationship partners bring one voice to the foreground while pushing the other to the background
two conversational strategies for responding to relational dialectics
- spiraling inversion
2. segmentation
spiraling inversion
switching back and forth between two contrasting voices, responding first to one pull, then the other.
Segmentation
a compartmentalizing tactic by which partners isolate different aspects of their relationship
aesthetic moment
- a fleeting sense of unity through a profound respect for disparate voices in dialogue
- Baxter describes dialogue as an aesthetic accomplishment
- memories of magic moments can support a couple through relational turbulence
- ex: first date, first time, vow renewal
Baxter suggests that a meaningful
ritual can be an aesthetic moment for all participants because it’s a joint performance in which competing contradictory voices in everyday social life are brought together simultaneously
critical sensibility
-an obligation to critique dominant voices, especially those that suppress opposing viewpoints; a responsibility to advocate for those who are muted
consequential ethics
- judging actions solely on the basis of their beneficial or harmful outcomes
- Bok believes all lies drag around an initial negative weight that must be factored into any ethical equation
principle of veracity
- truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special circumstances that overcome the negative weight
- Bok believes we need the principle of veracity because liars engage in a tragic self-delusion
Baxter and Mont. don’t feel relational dialectics should be
- considered a theory at all
- they offer relational dialectics as a sensitizing theory, one that should be judged on the basis of its ability to help us see close relationships in a new light
Speech accommodation theory
Process of seeking approval by meshing with another’s style of speaking, later known as COM accommodation theory
Speech accommodation theory
Process of seeking approval by meshing with another’s style of speaking, later known as COM accommodation theory
Speech Accommodation theory
process of seeking approval by meshing with another’s style of speaking, later known as COM accommodation theory
CAT communication accommodation theory
Theory of intercultural communication that actually attends to communication
CAT (COM accommodation theory)
a theory of intercultural communication that actually attends to communication
young communicators
teenagers-50s
Elderly communicators
65 and over
Accomodation
the constant movement toward or away from others by changing your communicative behavior
Two strategies of CAT
convergence and divergence
Convergence
- a strategy by which you adapt your communication behavior in such a way as to become more similar to another person
- adjusting your sound and cadence
- speaking louder or enunciating
- regarded as positive
- converging speakers are viewed as more competent, attractive, and cooperative
discourse management
the sensitive selection of topics to discuss
Divergence
- accentuating the differences between you and another person
- employ a thicker accent, different rate of speaking, speaking monotone or exaggerated
- divergence is the norm while convergence is the exception
- regarded as negative
- seen as insulting, impolite, or hostile
- accommodation to the in-group rather than members of the out-group
counter-accommodation
direct ways of maximizing the differences between two speakers
self-handicapping
for the elderly, a face-saving strategy that invokes age as a reason for not performing well
Two strategies similar to divergence
- maintenance: persisting in your original com style, regardless of the communication behavior of the other
- over-accommodation: demeaning or patronizing talk; excessive concern paid to vocal clarity or amplification, message simplification, or repetition.
- ex: baby talk
- counterproductive, can talk them into becoming less competent
CAT theorists have always regarded desire for social approval
as the main motivation for convergence
Desire for approval (personal identity)-convergence-positive response
- two-step, cause-and-effect relationship
- this sequence can’t explain why we communicate in a divergent way
- doesn’t take into account that we often act as a representative of a group
- when both people think of themselves as individuals
Social Identity
- group memberships and social categories that we use to define who we are
- based upon intergroup behavior
- motivated to reinforce and defend ties to group
- when groups are salient, com will diverge away from partner’s speech
When a group identity is salient
need for distinctiveness (social id)-divergence-negative response
-one or both people regard themselves as representatives of a group, com becomes divergent
Initial orientation
- predisposition a person has toward focusing on either individual or group identity
- predict based on five factors
Five factors that increase the odds that a communicator will see the conversation as an intergroup encounter
- collectivist cultural context
- distressing history of interaction
- stereotypes
- norms for treatment of groups
- high group-solidarity/dependence
Collectivistic cultural context
- we-centered focus emphasizes similarity and mutual concern within culture (social identity)
- their COM toward outward groups is divergent
- I-centered focus on individualistic cultures (Ind. identity)
Distressing history of interaction
- previous interactions were uncomfortable/hostile: both people will ascribe that outcome to the person’s social identity (men are like that, the poor are lazy)
- if previous time was positive, result is ascribed to individual (By the end, I felt better about elders/poor people)
Stereotypes
- the more specific and negative the images people have of an out-group, the more likely they are to think in terms of social identity and act divergent
- makes convergent COM across generation seldom and rare
Norms for treatment of groups
- norms: expectations about behavior that members of a community feel should (should not) occur
- can affect whether a member of one group regards a person from another as an individual or as “one of them”
High group solidarity/dependence
- “us-against-them” encounter
- strong identification with the group and high dependence on it for relational warmth and a sense of worth
Accommodation is in the eyes of the beholder
-it’s not how the communicator converged/diverged, but how the other perceived the communicator’s behavior
Disconnect between the behavior researchers saw and what participants heard and saw
- known as objective and subjective accommodation
- recipient’s subjective evaluation is what really matters, because that’s what will shape their response
- one does not converge (or diverge) toward the actual speech of the recipient, but toward (or from) one’s stereotype about the recipient’s speech
Attribution Theory
- the perceptual process by which we observe what people do and then try to figure out their intent or disposition
- how we interpret our partner’s convergent or divergent behavior
- we attribute an internal disposition to the behavior we seen another enact
Three factors of attribution theory
- the other’s ability
- external constraints
- effort expended
Critique of CAT
-CAT is so complex that the theory as whole cannot be tested at one time
Muted group
- people belonging to low power groups who must change their language when communicating publicly, thus, their ideas are often overlooked
- must change their language when communicating in the public domain and cannot share their true thoughts
Men’s dominant power position in society limits
women’s access to communication in public spaces
Public-private distinction
- women speak more in their home
- their words appear less in public
Women perceive the world differently from men because
they experience different activities and interests rooted in the division of labor
Gatekeepers
editors and other arbiters of culture who determine which books, essays, poems, plays, film scripts, will appear in the mass media
minding
an automatic pause before we speak in order to consider how those who are listening might respond
female subversion
- express themselves outside the public domain
- diaries, letters, gossip, poetry, pinterest
males have more difficulty
understanding what members of the other gender mean
Ultimate goal of mute group theory
is to change the man-made linguistic system that keeps women in their place
sexual harassment
an unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power
date rape
- unwanted sexual activity with an acquaintance, friend, or partner
- uncertainty from drug favors men, and mutes women, before, during, and after date rape.
Other muted groups
-people of color, gays, those from a lower socio-economic status
Orbe’s three common goals for muted groups (co-cultural theory)
- assimilation: blending with the dominant group
- separation: minimizing contact with dominant group
- accommodation: persuading the dominant group to incorporate the experiences of the co-cultural group
- ex: women’s suffrage, civil rights, or gay marriage
Critique of muted theory
- may make people uncomfortable as it regards men as oppressors and women as the oppressed
- question of men’s motives: we are assuming that all men want to control women
