Chp. 35 Muted Group Theory

Chapter 35, Muted Group Theory, argues that language is man-made and excludes women, and that if women cease to be muted, men will no longer be dominant in society. A muted group, according to this chapter, is a powerless group whose perspective is not heard in society. Now, this does not mean that their perspective is silent to others, it simply means that others in opposition choose to ignore it. This theory reminds me of an experience in high school which really changed our class, and entire school all together. When I was a senior in high school, I had a friend, Sarah, who really wanted to join the football team as their kicker (she was an awesome soccer player for our school). She had wanted to try out for the team since her freshman year, but when she approached the coach about it, he laughed in her face and told her to support the team by joining the cheerleading squad. She was very upset by this, and the next year, started a petition to let her join the team. She got the signature of every female at our school (and a few guys), including the female teachers and even some of our mothers. But still, the coach was relentless and did not want to even hear about a girl playing for his team. Finally, the summer going into our senior year, the coach let Sarah try out for the team as kicker. She, along with all the other male players, had to endure in harsh days of double-session practices, lifting, etc. It was hard for her, but she made it through. The coach was impressed with how much she had dedicated herself to the team, and come fall, he gave her a uniform and a helmet. She stood on the sidelines for most of the season, until one game that changed our school forever. Our first string kicker twisted his ankle and wouldn't be able to kick, so the coach put in Sarah to take his place. We were down by two points, with 8 seconds left in the game, and Sarah was up to kick. She went out onto the field and the crowd went crazy for her. She had been waiting so long for this opportunity. Needless to say, she kicked that ball as hard as her little body could and she made the 2 points for our team, advancing us to the state final. This experience relates to Muted-Group theory because it agrees with the thought that if women cease to be silent, men will no longer be dominant in society. Although Sarah is only one person, she changed the opinion of almost every man in the crowd that night. And that, folks, is what I call feminism.

Chp. 34 Standpoint Theory

Chapter 34, Standpoint Theory, says that your position in your society's social hierarchy affects how objective your perceptions will be in given situations, and that the lower your position, the more objective your perceptions. In class we discussed four marginalized groups. These groups include women, the poor, racial minorities, and homosexuals. I have to say, I totally support this theory and I don't think it could be any truer to what it states. Being a Kent State student on such a diverse campus, I see these marginalized groups everyday. I give a lot of credit to these groups, too, because it takes a lot of courage to stand up to the powerful. As a white, upper-middle class female, I've never really had to worry about being in a position where I would feel threatened, taken advantage of, or inferior to someone else. Although I am a woman, and women are in the marginalized groups, I have other characteristics in my life that make me a part of the "powerful." I remember watching the tv a few years ago and all I would ever see was "Should Gay Marriage be Legal?" across the screen. At the time it didn't really phase me, but now that I have gotten a little bit older, and especially from learning about these marginalized groups in class, I feel so terrible for them. I sometimes think how upset I would be if the government told me I couldn't marry the person I loved. These people have to spend the majority of their lives defending themselves, simply because of who they are. I have never been in that position, and I am lucky for that. But as a member of the "powerful people" I will do everything I can in the future to try and support these groups, and help them in their cause for acceptance.

Chp. 33 Genderlect Styles

I feel that chapter 33, Genderlect Styles, is an amazing theory! It's so true. I totally agree with the example in the book (p. 471-472) where the dialogue from When Harry Met Sally is used to show the miscommunication between men and women. It highlights Tannen's thoughts that men are concerned with status, while women are more concerned with intimacy. I see this problem occur so much, even just with my group of friends who are dating. The women are always asking, "Why would he say that? Doesn't he know it hurts my feelings? Is he shameless?"..while the men are saying, "Who cares? Don't take things so personally." And truly, as women, I feel we do. The miscommunication that occur between men and women are enormous sometimes, and even quite humorous. As much as I love Rick, sometimes when he talks I just want to say, "Shut up and listen to yourself!". I feel like all he talks about is how he wants to make so much money, and how he is the best at this and that, and how "..if I had the chance, I'd go back to that one game and do such and such differently, then we would have won for sure." He is so concerned about his status and he doesn't even know it. My friends make fun of him because he always has to have one up on us, getting the last word in to show us he "knows more" about everything. But truthfully, I see that in a lot of men. When I look at women, I see more of them trying to develop relationships and getting to know someone better, instead of talking about themselves and what they know is right, etc. Although there are occasions, which I'm sure many, where the table is flipped around and roles are reversed, I feel that the overall consensus would show that many people view men as status-driven, while women are more relationship oriented. And sometimes, as hard as some men and women try to communicate effectively, there's just no hope.

Chp. 31 Face-Negotiation Theory

Chapter 31, Face-Negotiation Theory, is an objective theory which links face and culture, conflict and individuals. The term "face" can be thought of as your self-image in public; the way you want others to see you. This theory really hits home with me because I used to be so worried about what other thought of me. In high school I pretty much had no self-confidence whatsoever, and I would get red over everything. And when I say everything, I mean everything. Well, one day when I was a freshman in high school, I was walking past a classroom (which, by the way, was where the love of my life, who was a senior, had a class and I just happened to walk by every day to see him) and slipped on a wet spot on the floor. Needless to say I turned into a tomato, almost in tears because I knew I had embarrassed myself in front of my crush. However, immediately, he stood up, came outside the classroom into the hall, helped me up, and said, "Hey, don't worry about it, I wiped out my freshman year, too, and it was down a flight of stairs!". In a way, I still appreciate him because he definitely saved a lot of face for me, considering he wasn't the only one who saw my horrific fall. Now, whenever I see someone fall, trip, have an incident of word vomit, or simply can't think think of the right thing to say, I always try and save face for them and make them feel a little more comfortable.

Chp. 30 Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

Chapter 30, Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory is an objective, sociopsychological theory that deals with managing anxiety. Throughout this chapter, the term "mindfulness" can be seen within the reading. Mindfulness, as we learned in class, has to do with how much our anxiety will affect our communication. Everyone, no matter who they are, strives for communication with the least amount of misunderstandings as possible, otherwise known as effective communication. While learning about this chapter, I began thinking about my own experience with this theory. My boyfriend Rick and me always visit his friend, Manny, in Toledo. Manny, along with some new friends of his, attend medical school in Toledo, and we have been hanging out with them when we visit. The first time I met them, I felt that our communication was anything but effective communication. I was too concerned about messing up or sounding stupid in front of them to even really listen to what they were saying. I had SO much anxiety when first meeting all of these people, because I felt inferior (Spiral of Silence tie-in!) to them since they are all soon to be doctors. As I got to know them, however, I realized they are just regular people, and our communication became a lot more effective because I was able to let go of my anxiety of feeling stupid around them. I began with conscious incompetence (uneffective communication, but aware of it) and am now at a level with them that I can display conscious competence (thinking about communication and getting better at it). It is now easier for me to tolerate ambiguity with these medical students, therefore, my anxiety has gone down.

Chp. 29 Spiral of Silence

Chapter 29, Spiral of Silence, is a theory that says we live in fear of isolation, and have the ability to assess the public opinion. Spiral of Silence is termed as the increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views when they think they are the minority. In class, we watched the South Park clip when everyone thought Kenny had head lice. I thought that clip was a great example to show what Spiral of Silence encompasses and how it works in our society. I had my own Spiral of Silence experience around Christmas time with my boyfriends' family. Rick (my boyfriend) and his entire extended family are against abortion. Well, on Christmas, unaware of the family mentality, the topic came up about abortion and I shared that I was pro-choice. I cannot say I would have an abortion myself, but I do feel that it is someone's choice to do what they want. After seeing the reaction of Rick's family's faces, I quickly tried to change my view point and say that I was not being serious, and that "of course I thought abortion was wrong." I changed my own thought because I did not want to be looked down upon by his family, which, if I think about it, I know they would not think less of me even if they did know I was pro-choice. My fear of being isolated and labeled as the minority quickly changed my mind, and made me suppress my true feelings on the subject.

Chp. 28 Agenda-Setting Theory

Chapter 28, Agenda-Setting Theory, is an objective theory that says the media tells us what to think about (first level agenda-setting), and in some cases, how and what to think about it (second level agenda-setting). Framing, as we discussed in class, is a term referring to how audiences tend to select some aspects of a person and make them the MAIN focus. In class, we discussed how Hillary Clinton and Barak O'bama are being exploited for being a woman (Hil) and a black candidate (O'bama). These are traits of the candidates that should not be the deciding factor on their chance at becoming president, but should only be their normal, physical attributes. The public, as well as journalists, news reporters, etc, tend to focus on the information that is less important, and turn it into something so big that it can be the deciding factor in someone's vote. However, this chapter also tells us that not everyone is as affected by the media. There are three types of people who are greatly affected, and that is : People who feel a need for orientation; because they want something to talk about with their peers, people who feel relevance to the topic; such as those who have a relative or friend or husband over in Iraq, and those who simply feel uncertainty and want to know as much as they can about someone or something. With newer media effects, we are about to choose from an abundant amount of sources that fit our liking, however, it is up to us to decide what we buy into, and what we choose to think about for ourselves.

Chp. 27 Cultivation Theory

Chapter 27, Cultivation Theory, is an objective theory from the socio-psychological perspective in which television is "society's storyteller." This theory explains that the more tv people watch (heavy viewers), the more likely they are to view the world like they do the television. This means that, say a heavy viewer watches a lot of violent tv shows, where people are murdered or beaten, then that viewer might have a higher chance at believing in the "mean world syndrome," and feel that the world is a cruel and vicious place, filled with nothing but terrible things. Someone who is a "light viewer", however, is more likely to view the world as it is, ever changing and inconsistent, and know that not everything on television is how it is in the real world. This theory reminds me of my father. A few weeks ago my father had his wallet stolen, and after it happened he said, "You know, I should have known, I was just watching a report on NBC about identity theft and how much it's happening." I'm relating this to my father because as hard of a worker as he is, once he's home, he's watching the tv, and he tends to make hasty judgements because of everything he hears. His golden phrase in our family is, "Ashley, you better be careful, I was watching...". We tend to make fun of him a little too much about it, but it is only fair.

Chp. 23 Dramatism

Chapter 23, Dramatism, is explained by Kenneth Burke as "what he saw going on when people open their mouths to communicate" (329). Although I was sick the day we discussed this Chapter in class, I feel like I have grasped the overall meaning of it. After reading this Chapter, I began thinking of the most recent movie I have seen, "300." In this movie, King Leonitis brings his 300 soldiers to battle the Persians, who were under the rule of the god Zerkses. Zerkses, a selfish and materialistic god, tries to persuade Leonitis to hand over Sparta, and give up their battle. He offers King Leonitis much wealth and power, and tells his he will give him anything he has ever wanted, as long as he hands over his power. Leonitis, a very determined and bright king, uses "dramatistic pentad" to analyze how Zerkses is trying to trick him. He analyzes his "act, scene, agent, agency and purpose" (331). Zerkses' purpose and motivation was to get Leonitis to bow down to him, and offer up his power. In this situation, Zerkses was the act, Leonitis was the agent, the form of agency used was by Zerkses, trying to persuade Leonitis by telling him all of the positive results that would come from his bowing down, and the purpose was for Zerkses to gain as much power as he possibly could. Although Zerkses could not persuade King Leonitis, his use of persuasion and digging deep into the person's mind, is how he did succeed in luring in so many others who succumbed to his vicious rule.

Chp. 20 Cultural Approach to Organizations

Chapter 20, Cultural Approach to Organizations, is a socio-cultural theory that describes how members of an organization create a culture within that organization. During class last week, we watched a clip from Office Space, and the culture that was formed at "Initech." Many of the characteristics of this "work culture" showed weak relationships with bosses, an overabundance of stress, the need for the bosses to repeat information, and also, annoying habits of other workers and their unavoidable strategies.
This chapter made me think of my dad's new business, Patriot Seating, where he hires veterans of the U.S. armed forces to assemble his office furniture. In class, we discussed how many stories are told about companies, and I automatically referenced it to my father's business. When my dad first started Patriot Seating, he used PR and let everyone know WHY he started it. His brother was a Vietnam vet who now suffers from very Traumatic Stress Disorder. He started the business to give jobs to those veterans who were struggling, so they could feel like they were a part of a good cause. This is my dad's "corporate story." There are also personal stories he shares about each and every veteran working there, how dedicated they are and what struggles and hardships they had to go through. We also discussed rituals performed at different organizations, and I actually used it as an example in class, that every day, my dad has his veterans raise and lower the flag, in remembrance of all the lives that were lost, and also, to show the main premise that his business was started from. Although it is not directly put out there, my dad's business is basically its own culture. All of the men and women who work for him have shared very similar experiences, and are all working for a good cause. The comparisons between Initech and Patriot Seating, although having their differences, definitely both demonstrate how organizations create their own cultures and patterns of behaviors.

Chp. 18 Adaptive Structuration Theory

Chapter 18, Adaptive Structuration Theory, is an interpretive theory that says people are active participants in groups, and that people are both affected by and affect the rules and resources of a group. In the past, the stage model did not include communication as a big role of group decisions. However, AST (along with some main ideas in Chp. 17) both reiterate the idea that communication is the biggest factor of group work.
Our class discussion last Thursday helped me to get a better understanding of this theory, and how it is applied to situations in my life. This theory looks at the "structure" of group work not as being permanent, but something that is continually evolving. Duality of structure explains how our actions create the grounds for developing traditions, which are constantly being produced and reproduced or altered. Everyone in a group has different attributes they can bring to the table.
When I first came to Kent State, I was very shy and timid, especially when having to work in groups in class. I was so scared that my ideas and opinions were not good enough and that everyone would shoot down my ideas. Now that I am a junior, I feel more comfortable stepping out of my "shy zone" and always share my thoughts about what needs to be done in order for the assignment to be completed well. The more ideas thrown out there, the more options the group has to choose from. Traditions are constantly changing and evolving when people decide to speak up, or someone decided to go against what has always been done, and take their own route. If more people start doing this, then more ideas can be created and accepted for new traditions.

Chp. 17 Func. Perspective on Group Decision Making

Chapter 17, Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making, discusses the four functions a group must fulfill to make a good decision. The four functions, analysis of the problem, goal setting, identification of alternatives and the evaluation of positive and negative characteristics, may be completed in any order, but every step must be fulfilled in order for progressive group work to occur.
When working in groups the other day in class, we were to create a commercial about a reality television show that has never been done before. This seemed like a very difficult task because SO many reality television shows are out there today. However, the three girls I worked with and I worked together and included all four of the steps into our developmental process. We followed, without knowing it, the "traditionally successful path" and succeeded at completing the task. We demonstrated promotive, disruptive, and counteractive communication, when we began formulating ideas and getting our thoughts out on the table, then got side tracked by talking about what reality shows we personally like/dislike, and then finally brought it all back together when we brought our strongest ideas together. Our group communication helped us to develop the ideas and quantitative analysis that is needed for successful group decision making.

Chp. 16: Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Chapter 16, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, explains what happens when theories and actions don't match up. As was explained in class, when there is an inconsistency between opinions and behaviors, there is usually some discomfort. When dealing with cognitive dissonance, we are more like to change out attitudes than our behaviors. It involves three hypotheses, saying that: selective exposure prevents dissonance, postdecision dissonance creates a need for reassurance, and minimal justification for action induces a shift in attitude.
I experienced my own cognitive dissonance when I was asked to help out at a Christmas food drive this past December. I would of had to get up at 7 am on Christmas morning, skip opening presents and spending time with my family when I wanted to, so obviously, my first reaction was, "No way!!". However, my friend, Sarah talked me into it and I was not a happy camper when I got there. I served homeless people from 8am-4pm, missing out on the opening of presents, Christmas dinner with the family, etc. And, I was not getting paid any money to help out, either. But, surprisingly enough, when the day was done and I came home to my family, I only had good things to say about the day. I told them how happy I was to have helped out for a good cause, and that seeing all of those homeless people smile because they had a meal on Christmas meant everything to me. My attitude shifted because there was minimal justification in the matter. I didn't receive anything in return from helping out that day, but I really did leave with some fulfillment.

Chp. 15: Elaboration Liklihood Model

Chapter 15, Elaboration Liklihood Model, focuses on alternative routes of persuasion. Petty and Cacioppo focus on elaboration, or "the extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication" (217). Speakers use the central route to try and figure out if what they are about to say will stick with their receiver, and if they will believe what they are saying. The peripheral route allows receivers of the message to decide quickly, by the means of cues, to decide if they like or dislike what is being said to them. The "click, whirr" response involves reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. All of these attribute to the taking in of messages and how the receiver and sender react to them. Petty and Cacioppo explain how many of us are lazy towards most issues of life, and our brains act as a mental filter, allowing only issues that are ego-involved to be stored and remembered.
I definitely follow the Elaboration Liklihood Model in most situations. When I am being persuaded, as well as acting as the persuader, I search for persuasive means of communication, to get someone to do something. I can remember a specific time in high school my freshman year and was being persuaded to drink alcohol and did not want to take part in it. A group of older senior boys were trying to get my friends and I to drink, and everyone wanted to, except me. They tried to get us to drink by using persuasive messages, such as, "Everyone does it" and "It will make you feel really good." I was motivated to try it because of how great they made it sound, but I was distracted by the nonverbal cues of some of the boys, and I began not to trust them. This is where I began to develop a strong, negative attitude change. The alcohol no longer seemed appealing, and all I could think about was how much trouble I would get it if my parents found out. The boys used the "wrong" cues in this specific situation, and did not succeed in getting me to drink with them.

Chp. 13 Constructivism

Chapter 13, Constructivism, is a theory that communication scholars refer to as the "black box." Its main point is that "people make sense of the world through a series of personal constructs that dictate how we communicate." These constructs consist of congitive complexity, sophisticated communication, person centered messages, and beneficial outcomes. When we started talking about this theory in class, I remembered a situation involving my boyfriend's younger sister, Kelly, who is 7 years old. Kelly and I were looking at my high school yearbook and I noticed that Kelly thought every girl that had short hair was "ugly" and every girl with long hair was "pretty." Her cognitive complexity is not very complex at all. Kelly hasn't experienced enough or met enough people in her life to be able to distinguish how people really are. Her personal construct is not fully developed and how she views people is based on very few past experiences. She might have had a friend with short hair who was mean to her at one point, and so now whenever she sees a girl with short hair, she associates her friend that was mean to her to a short-haired girl. Her dimension of construct integration is not balanced, either. She cannot see that a girl with short hair can also be nice. Her construct differentiation is very narrow, in that she either sees a girl as "ugly or pretty" based on their hair length. Kelly's person-centered messages are not getting through to her yet because of her age, and she is unable to adapt to someone's true identity. Her cognitive complexity will surely develop as she grows up, but it just shows how age definitely affects how you judge others and how well you are able to communicate.

Chp. 11 Relational Dialectics

Chapter 11, Relational Dialectics, is an interpretive theory also known as relational maintenance. This theory assumes that people in relationships live with three dialectical tensions that must be managed. These three tensions consist of Integration-Separation, Stability-Change, and Expression-Nonexpression. All of these tensions can be felt internally and externally. Dialectics make up a huge part of this theory because it involves tensions that are inherent, or unable to be resolved. When I first read about this theory, I immediately thought of my friends Jon and Ashley. They have been dating for almost six years, and the entire relationship has been one big dialectical tension. The subtensions of connectedness-separateness and inclusion-seclusion, certainty-uncertainty and conventionality-uniqueness, and openness-closedness and revelation-concealment are all applied to their relationship. Ashley has always been the one in the relationship that wanted she and Jon to always be together at all times. If Jon wasn't by her side or on the phone with her, she didn't know how to function. Jon, on the other hand, likes the feeling of separateness and being able to function on his own. He loves Ashley, but realizes he does not need to be with her at all times to be happy. Ashley did not enjoy including friends in their affairs, either. When she was with Jon she wanted it to be strictly just the two of them. Jon always wanted to be around both friends and Ashley. When Jon moved to Florida his senior year of high school, Ashley really had a hard time dealing with the absence of her boyfriend. She needed to teach herself to manage the distance and deal with the fact that they couldn't be together at all times. She became uncertain of their relationship, as did Jon, and they revealed less to each other, going from a very open relationship to more of a closed one. Traditionally, couples should be integrated, certain/conventional, and open with each other. Ashley and Jon dealt with these tensions the best they could, and now they are engaged to be married next year. This theory proves that relational tensions will always be in flux, but they are able to be managed.

Chp. 10 Social Information Processing Theory

Chapter 10 discusses Social Information Processing Theory. Griffin introduces three theories that explain the differences between CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) and face-to-face communication. The first, social presence theory, suggests that "text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other warm bodies are jointly involved in the interaction" (142). This means that since the communicators are not actually face to face, it is difficult to know if they are intently involved in the conversation, or if they really care. The second, media richness theory, suggests that face-to-face communication provides the means for verbal and nonverbal cues which help the mediums convey messages and figure out hidden meanings. The third "concentrates on the lack of social context cues in online communication" (143). It claims that CMC users are not clear of their relative status, which leads to people becoming more self-absorbed. A lack of social context cues in a conversation can lead to flaming, which s hostile language can create a "toxic climate" for any type of growth on the Internet. With these three theories, it seems pretty evident that CMC users cannot communicate as well or in-depth as face-to-face communicators. However, Joseph Walther, communication professor at Cornell University, claims that CMC users can in fact develop close relationships.
Walther does not feel that nonverbal cues are a fatal loss to a conversation over the Internet. He believes that two features of CMC provide back up for SIP theory. The first, verbal cues, help form impressions of others based only on the language content of computer messages. The second, extended time, simply means that it takes longer for people to develop intimate relationships through CMC than it does face-to-face. Walther feels that given enough time, intimate relationships can be developed just as well as face-to-face ones. However, since CMC eliminates non-verbal cues, CMC users must solely rely on text based messages to get their information across.
I feel this is very true because of a conversation I once had with a friend. He and I had just met, so we were still learning more about each other, but as far as a physical attraction to him, it was just not happening for me. We got to talking later that night through instant messages online and he asked me if I wanted to go out to dinner with him. Now, at this point, I had no idea he had feelings for me, so I said, "Sure, I'd love to, babe." I call all of my guy friends "babe" so I did not think it was a big deal. I even went on to tell him how excited I was and made reference to it as a "date" with no care at all. I figured we were just going as friends, and he had no other motive about the dinner date. I came to find out later on, at dinner, that he was interested in me and wanted to be more than friends, and even felt that I was attracted to him by the "way we talked online." I could not believe he actually thought I was flirting with him! But then I thought about it and, if I were in his shoes, I probably would have thought the same thing. How can you tell how someone is saying something, or means something just by seeing it typed in words? It is not like I typed "I am so excited to go to dinner with you! But, I want you to know I do not care for you in any other way besides a friend, nor do I want you to express your desire to be with me." I felt for him, and put the blame on myself. To avoid this, Walther says to communicate often and send more messages to develop more intimate relationships.
Another big part of communication lies in chronemics. Chronemics are "how people perceive, use, and respond to issues of time in their interaction with others" (148). Walther claims that chronemics can be are not lost when dealing with CMC users. He uses the example of sending a late-night request to a professor, and how it would seem demanding, but when sent to a friend at the same hour, it might be flattering that they were thinking of that person so late. Chronemics are also seen when dealing with more intimate relationships, and if a response is delayed, it might signify being comfortable with one another and not feeling the need to respond so quickly. I agree with this example because whenever I email my family or boyfriend, I never expect a response that quickly. I know their schedules and also that they will respond when they get a chance. It reminds me how close we are and that they are not taking their time to be ignorant.
Lastly, Walther include sender, receiver, channel and feedback as the 4 main ingredients to good CMC. The sender has the ability to make a positive impression; the receiver may use attribution to figure out what the sender is really like; the channel gives the communicators the opportunity to interact rationally and think about what they are going to say before they say it, which Walther refers to as an asynchronous channel that parties can use nonsimultaneously; and feedback uses the self-fulfilling prophecy, which can confirm a person's expectations of another.

Chp. 9 Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Chapter 9, entitled Uncertainty Reduction Theory, is explained by communication professor Charles Berger. Berger believes, as this theory claims, that it is natural to have doubts about our ability to predict the outcome of initial encounters (130). His theory's main focus is on how humans use communication to gain knowledge and create an understanding. Berger suggests that any uncertainty we may have about new acquaintances gets an extra "boost" from any of the following three conditions: anticipation of future interaction, incentive value and deviance. On page 131, Berger uses the example of two dogs sniffing each other's behinds to get a feel for each other, to get to know each other better. He explains that humans are no different, we just use less, well, less offensive means of introducing ourselves. But, when I think about it, dogs have it easy when it comes to breaking the ice. They sniff each other's butts and automatically know everything they need to know about the other feline. Ha! If only it were this simple for humans.
Berger claims that Uncertainty Reduction Theory is based on just that, uncertainty. He notes that there are at least two kinds of uncertainty that we as humans must face when first meeting someone. The first kind of uncertainty deals with behavioral questions. Examples of these would be "Should I shake hands?", "I wonder what that smile was implying?", "Do I tell him he smells nice?", etc. The second kind of uncertainty focuses on cognitive questions that are aimed at discovering who the other person is as a unique individual (132). These types of questions involve ones such as, "I wonder what makes him so happy?", "Is his family as nice as he is?", "Does he enjoy his life?", etc. The best example I can think of, when concerning these uncertainties, is when I was interviewed for my most recent job as a waitress. This could not have been a more horrific experience for me. I got the call back to come in for an interview and I was ecstatic! I figured it would be a simple, quiet, one on one interview with the manager and I would soar through the questions and get hired on the spot! However, things did not go as planned. When I showed up, I was greeted by not one, but FIVE managers, including the owner of the restaurant. They brought me into a room and sat me at a table, all of them sitting in front of me in a row..staring, glaring, gnarling their teeth..Okay, okay, I am exaggerating but it really was scary! Anyway, when comparing this experience to Uncertainty Reduction Theory, I was definitely experiencing behavioral and cognitive doubts. I kept thinking, "What are they thinking of me?", "Did I say something wrong?", "Should I have shook all of their hands when I first came in here?", "I wonder if they are nice people and understand I am nervous?". All of these questions raced through my mind as I tried to think of the best responses I could to get hired! At the end of the interview, I could have screamed in a fit of joy when the owner, Tony, said those words I had been waiting to hear: "Well, Ashley, we would love to have you as a server."
During my interview, I had much uncertainty about what was going to come out of it. But one thing I was certain about, was that uncertainty was present. Berger introduces 8 axioms that represent the concept of uncertainty and relationships. Axioms are generally recognized as "self-evident truths that require no additional proof" (132). Berger's 8 truths about initial uncertainty include verbal communication, nonverbal warmth, information seeking, self-disclosure, reciprocity, similarity, liking and shared networks. All of these axioms create either an increase or a decrease in uncertainty, depending on the communication network. They are intertwined with one another and end up branching out into 28 different theorems.
There are also three strategies to Uncertainty Reduction Theory that are covered towards the end of the chapter. To find out how others will might react to our messages, we may observe others from a distance, or display a passive strategy. Before I was hired, I would go into the restaurant I would eventually apply to, and have dinner, since my housemate worked there. I would keep a close eye on the other workers and make references in my mind about what kind of people I thought they were, and if I would fit in with them if hired. The second approach is active strategy, when a third party is involved, usually to retrieve information for the true seeker. Before getting hired, I would ask Lindsay, my housemate, all about the managers and those who worked there, to see if they were nice people and what to expect if I were to be hired. The third strategy is interactive strategy, when we actually talk face-to-face with the other person and ask specific questions (137). After being hired, I was able to get to know my managers better and get a feel for what they expected and what they would tolerate.
This theory is a very important one in that it made major contributions to the communications field. However, there are some doubts when it comes to theorem 17 (made up of axioms 3 and 7), which predicts that the more you like people, the less you seek to know about them. As was discusses in class, this theorem, is definitely up for debate, as well as many other aspects of the communication field.

Chp. 8: Social Penetration Theory

Chapter 8, entitled Social Penetration Theory, is portrayed by social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor and is described as a process that explains how relational closeness develops (119). Altman and Taylor compare people to onions, depicting the multilayered nature of personality.

As soon as I began to read this chapter, I immediately began to think of the relationship I have with my boyfriend, Rick, and the many discoveries I have made about his personality that could not be seen on his "outer layer." To properly understand Social Penetration Theory, I had to really think about its two core concepts, breadth and depth. Breadth describes many different aspects of one's personality, while still remaining on their outermost layer, while depth refers to more of the inner feelings and characteristics that make up a person (Kleman, class notes). When I first met Rick last summer, all I knew about him initially was that he was a six-foot, brown haired, brown eyed, soccer player who went to my high school and was three years older than me. I knew the breadth of him, but it took us spending time with each other and building a strong relationship to really get to know the depth of him.

With the two core concepts of breadth and depth, there are also four main assumptions when dealing with Social Penetration Theory and relationships. The first is that peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. This rings very true in my experience with Rick. When we first met, the only information we shared was "surface information." I shared with him my interests, my age, introduced him to my family, and made him aware that I had previously been in a 5 year relationship. He shared the same with me, and also that he had been in a 3 year relationship prior to dating me. Although we shared information with each other, it was still on the surface, and no major details or characteristics about our lives were discussed. The second assumption is that self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially at the beginning stages of a relationship. When Rick and I first started dating, he would not tell me any more than I would tell him. I did not dig any deeper than he would, because we were both unsure when the right time would be to "break the boundary" and peel away the second layers. The third assumption is that penetration is rapid at the start, and slows down as the relationship progresses. I actually feel that I disagree with the assumption because of how it has been applied to my life and my relationship. It took Rick and I a few months before we started getting into the nitty-gritty of each other's lives. We did not share much about our inner feelings until we got to know each other well, and now that we have been together for almost 10 months, it seems we cannot shut up when it comes to telling stories. Once he and I opened up about our views on religion, politics, and especially our past relationships and what went wrong, our penetration process became very rapid, and still is as we learn more about each other. The forth and final assumption is that depenetration is a gradual, layer-by-layer withdrawal. I can apply this assumption to my previous relationship before Rick. When my ex-boyfriend and I ended our relationship, we tried to stay in touch as much as possible and keep each other in our lives as friends, however, it did not work out that way. Our "layers" seemed to re-peel and close up, and we eventually lost all contact with each other because we were not frequent in each other's lives any longer.

Social Penetration Theory also deals with what is called Reward/Cost Analysis. This is when, as Thibaut and Kelley suggest, "people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place" (123). The mimimax principle claims that people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. When I was deciding if I should date Rick or not, I weighed my pros and cons. I knew he was a great guy (by reputation) and that he loved family, friends and animals. He was athletic, smart, goal-oriented and also, 23, which made him more appealing to me because I felt he would be more mature than any other guy I had ever dated. The only con was that he would be moving away for his new job, which I decided would be bareable. He and I had too much in common for me to let him go. I rated Rick on a high relational outcome, and that is exactly what I got.

The last major points in this Chapter was that of Comparison Level and Comparison Level of Alternatives. Comparison level deals with relative satisfaction, "how happy or sad an interpersonal outcome makes a participant feel" (124). For example, I see Rick about every two weeks. We are both used to this amount of time without each other, and it works for us. However, if we had to wait three or four weeks to see each other, we would most likely be disappointed. We have developed expectations with each other and if those expectations are not met, our reltaive satisfaction might decrease. Comparison level of alternatives "shows the relative stability of a relationship" (124). It asks the question, "Would I be better off with someone else?" and "What is the worst outcome I would have to put up with and still stay in this relationship." Comparison level of alternatives can explain why some women stay in abusive realtionships (125), and why they cannnot imagine better alternatives. My relationship with Rick is one where I feel, and I believe he would agree, that our stability is very strong, and neither of us are looking for something better. There is nothing I have seen that is more attractive or more appealing than Rick. He and I have a very equal relationship and we reciprocate as much as possible, which I am sure is what keeps our relationship strong.

Chapter 6: Expectancy Violations Theory

Chapter 6 focuses on Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) with a concentration on personal space violations. Em Griffin uses the journal article of Judee Burgoon, a communication scholar at the University of Arizona, to reiterate his thoughts on personal space violations, and also gives an example of these violations when taking place in the classroom. Burgoon defined personal space as the "invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that individual's preferred distance from others," (84). In other words, everyone has a specific amount of space that others can approach, but once that space is invaded, depending on the content of the conversation and the likeability of the other communicator, lines can be crossed and good communication ceases to exist.
The use of proxemics, meaning "the study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture," (84), has a lot to do with the way Griffin reacted to his students. Two of the students made him feel comfortable, and two made him feel violated. The example of this theory helped me relate it to my own life. My mother, a fifth grade teacher at Canfield Middle School, comes home with stories like this on a regular basis. If her students are sitting far away from her when asking her about what assignment is due, or what they missed when they were sick, she becomes annoyed. She feels a discussion like that should take place after class, when she can speak to them one-on-one. On the other hand, if one of her students happens to lose a tooth, she wants no part of it and appreciates them to stay away from her, excuse themselves, and go to the bathroom to take care of it. It seems harsh, but the reality of it is that she has her own area of comfortability, and when it is crossed, communication is no longer as clear as it should be. This can also be applied to my life when it comes to males. If a guy came up to me who I barely knew, put his arm around me and said, "Hey, baby. How you doin?", I would immediately be turned off and want no part of the conversation. The intimacy factor would make me feel very awkward and send the message to my head that he was rude, unintelligent, and a pervert.
The Chapter goes into three important terms when dealing with EVT: context, relationship factors, and communicator characteristics. Context deals with cultural norms, and how these norms differ in certain countries, (Ex: Three feet is too close in England or Germany, yet too far away in Saudi Arabia) (89). Relationship factors deal with how one feels about someone else. For example, I would not mind my mother, friend, or boyfriend speaking to me at an intimate level because I have close relationships with all of them. Communicator characteristics include age, sex, place of birth, physical features and personality. A warm personality is certainly more appealing than someone who is unsociable and cold; and a bright, straight smile is more eye-catching than a crooked, discolored one. These characteristics catch the attention of the "receiver" and force them to either accept or reject the messages being sent to them.
The final topic I felt was important in Chapter 6 was Social Penetration Theory. This theory asks, "What can you do for me?" and also "What can you do to me?" (91). Burgoon uses the term communicator reward valence when referencing our potential gains and losses from a conversation. If a professor was discussing an extra credit assignment in class, I would give them my full attention because this opportunity could benefit my grade. However, if a professor was giving a lecture on the anatomy of the human body, I would not be as interested, and my attention would be somewhere else.
The content of Chapter 6 makes a lot of sense when thinking about how conversations can be affected by violations of personal space. When applied to my own life, I understand the main points of Expectancy Violations Theory and how it is of great importance to the field of Communications.