background preloader

Communication theory

Facebook Twitter

The critical view. The systemic view. The symbolic interactionist view. File:Interactive.png. Robert T. Craig. Robert T.

Robert T. Craig

Craig is a communication theorist from the University of Colorado, Boulder who received his B.A. in Speech at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and his M.A and PhD. in communication from Michigan State University.[1] Craig was on the 1988 founding board of the journal "Research on Language and Social Interaction,"[3] a position he continues to hold.[4][5] From 1991-1993 Craig was the founding editor of the International Communication Association journal "Communication Theory" which has been in continuous publication since 1991.[1] He is currently the editor for the ICA Handbook series.[1][6] In 2009 Craig was elected as a Lifetime Fellow for the International Communication Association,[7] an organization he was president for in 2004-2005.[8][9] Grounded practical theory[edit] In 1995 Robert T.

The psychological view of communication.

Communication theory as a field of study

Inoculation theory. Medical analogy[edit] Inoculation can best be explained by a medical inoculation analogy.

Inoculation theory

Indeed, the analogy served as the inaugural exemplar for how inoculation confers resistance. As McGuire (1961a) initially explained, a medical inoculation works by exposing a body to weakened viruses—strong enough to trigger a response (i.e., the production of antibodies), but not so strong as to overwhelm the body's resistance. Attitudinal inoculation seems to work the same way: Expose someone to weakened counterarguments, triggering a process of counterarguing which eventually confers resistance to later, stronger persuasive messages. Face negotiation theory. Face negotiation theory is a theory first proposed by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985 to understand how different cultures throughout the world respond to conflict.

Face negotiation theory

Our self-image, or “face”, is at risk in conflict and our culture is attached to the way we deal with this issue and communicate. Explanation[edit] The theory has gone through multiple iterations since its creation, most recently in 2005.[1] In essence, the theory applies specifically to conflict, and is based on identity management on an individual and a culture. The various facets of individual and cultural identities are described as faces.

Faces are the image of an individual, or that of a group, that society sees and evaluates based on cultural norms and values. The "Locus of Face" is known as the degree of concern for self face and others' faces. People from collectivistic cultures usually adopt conflict styles of avoiding or integrating because the "mutual face" or the face of the group is the top concern. Uncertainty reduction theory. Coordinated management of meaning. In social sciences, coordinated management of meaning (CMM) "theorizes communication as a process that allows us to create and manage social reality".[1] People have unique interpretations of the world around them - they have different "meanings" of what they encounter.

Coordinated management of meaning

These meanings/interpretations are dependent on myriad factors including history, personality, affiliations etc. Through communication, an underlying process takes place in which communities negotiate a common or conflicted interpretation of the world around them thereby creating a social reality in which the community lives. CMM advocates that these meanings can be managed in a productive way so as to improve the general state of the community by coordinating and managing the meaning-making process. Predicted outcome value theory. Predicted outcome value theory proposes that initial interaction behaviors serve two related functions in individuals' attempts to maximize future relational outcomes.

Predicted outcome value theory

First, communication is directed at reducing uncertainty (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) about new acquaintances to determine likely outcome-values for the relational future. Second, communication proceeds in a manner predicted to result in the most positive outcomes. In a broad sense, these outcome value predictions would lead to communicative attempts to terminate or curtail the conversation, to continue the entry-level conversation, or to escalate the conversation and relationship beyond this level. Attempts to continue or escalate would result from positive predicted outcome values, while attempts to terminate or curtail would result from negative predictions. Symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that is influential in many areas of the sociological discipline.

Symbolic interactionism

It is particularly important in microsociology and social psychology. Symbolic interactionism is derived from American pragmatism and particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead. Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation. [citation needed] Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics using a variety of research methods.

History[edit] Symbolic interactionism originated with two key theorists, George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Relational dialectics. Relational dialectics is a concept within communication theory.

Relational dialectics

This concept could be interpreted as "a knot of contradictions in personal relationships or an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies. "[1] The theory, first proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter[2] and W. K. Rawlins[3][4] in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions.

Social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory (SCT), used in psychology, education, and communication, holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences.

Social cognitive theory

The theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and the consequences of that behavior, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Observing a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in behavior they already learned.[1][2] In other words, people do not learn new behaviors solely by trying them and either succeeding or failing, but rather, the survival of humanity is dependent upon the replication of the actions of others.

Depending on whether people are rewarded or punished for their behavior and the outcome of the behavior, the observer may choose to replicate behavior modeled. History[edit] In 1941, Neal E. Symbolic convergence theory. Uses and gratifications theory. Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) is an approach to understanding why and how people actively seek out specific media to satisfy specific needs.

Uses and gratifications theory

UGT is an audience-centered approach to understanding mass communication.[1] Diverging from other media effect theories that question "what does media do to people? ", UGT focuses on "what do people do with media? "[2] This communication theory is positivistic in its approach, based in the socio-psychological communication tradition, and focuses on communication at the mass media scale.[3] The driving question of UGT is: Why do people use media and what do they use them for? UGT discusses how users deliberately choose media that will satisfy given needs and allow one to enhance knowledge, relaxation, social interactions/companionship, diversion, or escape.[4][5][6] It assumes that audience members are not passive consumers of media.

Control theory (sociology) Control Theory Diagram[1] Control Theory, as developed by Walter Reckless in 1973, states that behavior is caused not by outside stimuli, but by what a person wants most at any given time. According to the control theory, weak containing social systems result in deviant behavior. Deviant behavior occurs when external controls on behavior are weak. According to control theory; people act rationally, but if someone was given the chance to act deviant they would.

So, basically, if you have strong social bonds to positive influences, deviant behavior is less likely than someone who has no family or friends. Control theory stresses how weak bonds between the individuals and society free people to deviate or go against the norms, or the people who have weak ties would engage in crimes so they could benefit, or gain something that is to their own interest. Hirschi (1969) identifies four elements of social bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.[2] Hamlin, John.

O'Grady, William. Agenda-setting theory. Agenda-setting theory describes the "ability [of the news media] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda.

Agenda-setting theory

"[1] That is, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently the audience will regard the issue as more important. Agenda-setting theory was formally developed by Dr. Max McCombs and Dr. Donald Shaw in a study on the 1968 presidential election. Structuration. Premises and origins[edit] Sociologist Anthony Giddens adopted a post-empiricist frame for his theory, as he was concerned with the abstract characteristics of social relations. [according to whom?] This leaves each level more accessible to analysis via the ontologies which constitute the human social experience: space and time ("and thus, in one sense, 'history'

Spiral of silence. The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. Spiral of silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation.

The assessment of one's social environment may not always be correct with reality. Social penetration theory. The social penetration theory proposes that, as relationships develop, interpersonal communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more intimate ones.[1] The theory was formulated by psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor in 1973 to provide an understanding of the closeness between two individuals. The social penetration theory states that this process occurs primarily through self-disclosure and closeness develops if the participants proceed in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes.[2] Altman and Taylor believe that only through opening one's self to the main route to social penetration-self-disclosure-by becoming vulnerable to another person can a close relationship develop. To self-disclose, one must open up their inner feelings, this could be anything from their personal motives or desires.

Symbolic convergence theory. Coordinated management of meaning. Speech code theory. Speech codes theory refers to a framework for communication in a given speech community. As an academic discipline, it explores the manner in which groups communicate based on societal, cultural, gender, occupational or other factors. A speech code can also be defined as "a historically enacted socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct. "[1] "This theory seeks to answer questions about the existence of speech codes, their substance, the way they can be discovered, and their force upon people within a culture" (Griffin, 2005). The mechanistic view of communication.

File:Transactional.png. Communication theory.