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.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)