Comm. 1510-01Mon & Thurs, 4:00 to 7:50 p.m.Russell Sage Laboratory 4510

Introduction to Communication

Theory

Lecture 4

Prepared for Prof. Carlos G. Godoy, PhD, Esq. by Matt Rolph

People

• Do you have a best friend?– Is it easier to communicate with

that person?• How about someone who

irritates you?– Is it tougher to communicate with

that person? • Can it be easier or more difficult

to communicate with family? More difficult with a boss?

“Step Brothers” (2008)

Relationships

• Communication happens in relationships of many kinds, like those at work, in class, or in a family.

• Cause-and-effect models of communication can’t easily explain the complexity of relationships and the way they affect communication.

Not• A cause and effect chain:

a -> b -> c -> d• Instead, a relationship

x = b2 + – 5d

In other words, complicated.

2a----a

Interactional View

Chapter 13 Paul WatzlawickInterpretiveObjective

• Individual behavior is better understood as part of a system.

• Family system:– A self-regulating,

interdependent network of feedback loops guided by member’s rules; the behavior of each person affects and is affected by the behavior of another. (Griffin p. 170)

1921-2007

Interactional View

Family Homeostasis• The tacit collusion of family members to maintain the status

quo; in other words, the way a group collaborates, sometimes unconsciously, to keep things stable – even if they don’t consciously want to.

• One explanation involves a ‘symptom strategy’ – explaining the silence using semi-reasonable excuses, i.e. I am too tired for that today.

Axioms of Interpersonal Communication

• One cannot NOT communicate.

• Communication = Content + Relationship

• The nature of a relationship depends on how both parties punctuate the communication sequence

• Communication is either symmetrical or complementary

• Communication always includes more than the meaning of the words or message

Symmetrical v. Complementary

• Symmetrical interchange is based on equal power, whereas complementary communication is based on differences of power.• Healthy relationships include both kinds of

communication.

The Interactional View

• Axiomatic description (with corollaries ) of communication as a system.

• Emphasizes issues of control, status, and power.

• Relationships are assessed through an exchange of at least two messages

Rogers and Farace

• Coding system categorizes control in ongoing marital interaction.

• Bids for dominance do not necessarily result in control of the interaction

One Up

One Down

One Across

• Seeks to control

• Yields control

• Neutralizes control

The Franklin Family

• A “disturbed family system”• The Franklin family (p. 169 in

Griffin)– Sonia – the concert pianist (and

mom)– Stan – the man at work (and dad)– Laurie – honors student

(responsible sister)– Mike – the problem child

Olympic athlete Michael Phelps -- probably not the image he hopes you’ll remember

The Simpsons

• Early episodes in particular feature family themes

• “Bart the Genius” (Season 1: Episode 2)• Clips:• http://www.hulu.com/watch/29524/the-simpsons-scrabble#x

-4,vclip,94• http://www.hulu.com/watch/29527/the-simpsons-aptitude-t

est-cheater#x-4,vclip,94• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6qPVWhPUX0

Trapped with no place to go …

– Family systems are highly resistant to change.– Double binds are contradictory demands on

members of the system.– The paradox of the double bind is that the high-

status party in a complementary relationship insists that the low-status person act as if the relationship were symmetrical.

Changing the game …

• … by changing the rules:– Destructive rules can be changed only when members

analyze them from outside the system. – Reframing is the process of altering perspective and

looking at things in a new light.– Accepting a new frame means rejecting the old one.– Adapting a new interpretive frame usually requires outside

help.

A Critique

Janet Beavin Bavelas

•Proposed adjustments to the Interactional View•Not all nonverbal behavior

is communication – in the absence of relationship and intentionally shared code, nonverbal behavior is informative rather than communicative

A Critique

Janet Beavin Bavelas

•Proposed adjustments to the Interactional View• A “whole message model”

integrates verbal and nonverbal communication.• The term

metacommunication should be reserved for communication about communication

Limits of System Theories

• Apply well to multivariate systems, but …

– Systems theories involving people are difficult to evaluate because of equifinality—a given behavioral outcome could be caused by various interconnected factors.

– Equifinality: In the study of systems, the recognition that different initial states can lead to similar end states; the property of allowing or having the same effect or result from different events

Influence

• Influence research focuses on communication strategies that elicit behavioral compliance.

Attitudes

• Attitudes are internal responses made us of the ways people think, feel, and intend to act.– Cognitive: What do you believe?– Affective: What does your heart say?– Behavioral: What do you plan to do?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Slightly Disagree

No Opinion

Slightly Agree

Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Example of a 7-point Likert semantic differential scale

Social Judgment Theory: Ch. 14• Three Latitudes–Acceptance–Rejection–Noncommitment

Muzafer Sherif 1906-1988

InterpretiveObjective

Acceptance Non-commitment

Rejection

The location and width of each interrelated latitude may vary a great deal from person to person

Example

Ego Involvement

• Refers to the importance of an issue to an individual.

• The favored position anchors all other thoughts on a topic.

• Features of high-ego involvement:– Noncommitment nearly

nonexistent– Rejection latitude is wide.– People who hold extreme views

care deeply.

Judging the Message:Contrast and Assimilation Errors

• Sherif theorized that we use our own anchored attitude as a comparison point when we hear a discrepant message.

• People “cold” to an idea who hear a message on that topic perceive contrast – even a slight disagreement seems large and the message is rejected.

• Contrast: A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of rejection as further from their anchor than they really are.

Judging the Message:Contrast and Assimilation Errors

• Sherif theorized that we use our own anchored attitude as a comparison point when we hear a discrepant message.

• People “hot” for an idea who hear a message on that topic that is aligned with their view accept it even when there are good reasons not to do so.

• Assimilation: A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of acceptances as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are.

Attitude Change

• According to social judgment theory, we judge each received message, comparing it to our anchored position – this is the first stage in attitude change.

• In the second stage, we shift our anchor in response to the message.

• Sherif thought that both stages take place below the threshold of consciousness.

Discrepancy and Attitude Change

• How much our attitude changes – how much our anchor shifts – depends on the level or discrepancy between the message and our initial anchor point.

• The greater the discrepancy, the more people adjust their attitudes.

• According to Sherif, volition (will) is not a factor for the hearers.

Boomerang Effect

• Attitude change in the opposite direction of what the message advocated; listeners driven away from rather than drawn to an idea.

Sherif’s Advice for Persuaders

• For maximum influence, select a message right on the edge of the audience's latitude of acceptance.

• Persuasion is a gradual process consisting of small movements.

• The most dramatic, widespread, and enduring attitude changes involve changes in reference groups with differing values.

Evidence supporting this theory

• Evidence that argues for acceptance. – Research on the predictions of social judgment

theory requires highly ego-involved issues.– Studies have demonstrated three significant findings.

• Messages from highly credible speakers will stretch the latitude of acceptance.

• Ambiguity effectively places statements within the latitude of acceptance.

• Dogmatic people have chronically wide latitudes of rejection.

Critique

• How wide is your theoretical latitude of acceptance? – Application of the theory raises ethical problems.– The theory has practical utility for persuaders.– Like all cognitive explanations, social judgment theory

assumes a mental structure and process that are beyond sensory observation.

– While it has not been widely tested empirically, research does support it, validating its claims while proving the theory falsifiable.

– Despite these reservations, social judgment theory is an elegant, intuitively appealing approach to persuasion.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Ch. 15Richard Petty & John Cacioppo

Social NeurologistJohn Cacioppo

InterpretiveObjective

Central Route

Mental Effort:High

High messageelaboration

Peripheral Route

Mental Effort:Low

No messageelaboration

Message Elaboration

• The extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication.

• ELM has been a leading communication theory, perhaps the leading theory, for the past 20 years

Central Route

• The path of cognitive processing that involves scrutiny of message content– Mental work, thinking about the message• Petty and Cacioppo assume that people are motivated

to hold ‘correct’ attitudes but are not always logical in their approaches to meeting this goal.• There is only so much time and energy, and there are

many, many messages – a large-mesh mental ‘spam filter’ (heuristic processing) is necessary.

– Message elaboration

Peripheral Route

• A mental shortcut process that accepts or rejects a message based on irrelevant cues as opposed to actively thinking about the issue.– Robert Cialdini’s six cues that trigger a programmed

response:• Reciprocation – “You owe me”• Consistency – “We’ve always done it that way”• Social Proof – “Everybody’s doing it”• Liking – “Love me, love my ideas”• Authority – “Just because I say so”• Scarcity – “Quick, before they’re all gone”

Motivation for Elaboration

• Motivation plays a role in cognition and message elaboration

• Some individuals have a high need for cognition, will ‘think about it’ even if ‘it’ is not personally relevant

• 4 Question Need-for-Cognition Scale– I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to

problems. (Yes = high need)– I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. (Yes)– I like tasks that require little thought once I have learned them. (No)– Thinking is not my idea of fun. (No)

Ability to Elaborate

• Issue-relevant thinking (elaboration) requires more than intelligence; it requires concentration.

• Distraction disrupts elaboration.• Repetition may increase the possibility of

elaboration.

Biased v. Objective Elaborations

• ‘Thinking about it’ does not guarantee objectivity.• Biased elaboration: Top-down thinking in which

predetermined conclusions color the supporting data.• Objective elaboration: Bottom-up thinking in which

facts are scrutinized without bias; seeking truth wherever it might lead.

Strong, Weak, and Neutral• Arguments may be strong, weak, or neutral – influencing

the way they are processed via the central route.• ELM presumes argument strength is an important

variable.• Strong arguments generate favorable thoughts when

examined, and may increase the message’s likelihood to persist over time, resist counterpersuasion, and predict future behavior

• Weak arguments look even worse on closer examination, offend sensibilities.

Peripheral Cues

• Petty and Cacioppo include the kinds of social transactions based on the influence of the speaker or source, likability, credibility, as when an idolized, attractive, or famous person speaks a message

• These, however, can fail to achieve the desired persistence over time, resistance to counterpersuasion, and to predict future behavior – the audience pays more attention to the speaker or source than to the message

Nilsen’s Significant Choice

• ELM describes effective persuasion techniques, can, in theory, be used to design messages that bypass rational faculties

• Thomas Nilsen is concerned with what is ethical communication and persuasion

• Advocates message design that fosters free, informed, rational, and critical choice – significant choice

COGNITIVE DISSONANCELeon Festinger

1919-1989

Aesop’s fable of the Fox and the GrapesUnable to leap high enough to reach the grapes, the fox concludes that they are sour and best left uneaten.

“Graveyard smoker” by Florida artist Chris BooneSmokers experience cognitive dissonance, particularly when they know a lot about the consequences

Cognitive Dissonance

• The distressing mental state caused by inconsistencies between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action

• What are some other examples?

Reducing Dissonance

• Festinger hypothesized that there are three mental mechanisms people use to reduce dissonance:– selective exposure– postdecision dissonance– minimal justification

Selective Exposure

• The tendency people have to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it’s incompatible with their current beliefs

Postdecision Dissonance

• Strong doubts experienced after making an important, close-call decision that is difficult to reverse

Minimal Justification

• A claim that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior

• Counterattitudinal advocacy: publicly urging others to believe or do something that is opposed to what the advocate actually believes

Compliance

• In this case, “compliance” is ‘public conformity to another’s expectation without necessarily having a private conviction that matches the behavior’

A Classic Experiment

• “Would I lie for a dollar?” The $1/$20 study• Festinger and James Carlsmith recruited Stanford

University men in a study allegedly investigating industrial relations, a series of menial tasks designed to be boring and repetitive

• At the end of the hour, the experimenter approached the subject claiming an assistant had failed to arrive and offering him a sum to convince a young woman in a waiting room to participate in the same study

• Some were offered $20, some $1

A Classic Experiment

• Some refused, but most students tried to recruit the young woman

• Those who accepted $20 later confessed that they believed the task was dull

• Those who accepted $1 maintained it was much more enjoyable– I’m a Stanford man. Am I the kind of guy who

would lie for a dollar? No way. Actually, what I told the girl was true. The experiment was a lot of fun.

THREE STATE-OF-THE-ART REVISIONS

The Cause and Effect of Dissonance

The Rationalizing Animal

• Elliot Aronsen proposes revising the Cognitive Dissonance to eliminate “conceptual fuzziness” by more specifically stating the conditions under which a person would experience dissonance

A B C DAttitude/Behavior

InconsistencyDissonance

CreatedAttitudeChange

DissonanceReduced

In Festinger’s Process Model of Cognitive Dissonance, the A->B link is unclear

The Rationalizing Animal

• Aronsen traces the problem not to logical inconsistency, as Festinger theorized, but to our psychological inconsistency

• We need to maintain self-esteem• “If dissonance exists, it is because the individual’s

behavior is inconsistent with his self-concept”• According to Aronsen, the amount of dissonance a

person can experience is directly proportional to the effort he or she has invested in the behavior

Personal Responsibility for Bad Outcomes

• AKA “the New Look”• Joel Cooper argues that it’s the knowledge

that one’s actions have unnecessarily hurt another person that generates dissonance.

• Cooper concludes that dissonance is a state of arousal caused by behaving in such a way as to feel personally responsible for bringing about an aversive event.

Self-Affirmation to Dissipate Dissonance

• Claude Steele focuses on dissonance reduction.

• He believes that high self-esteem is a resource for dissonance reduction.

• Steele asserts that most people are motivated to maintain a self-image of moral and adaptive adequacy.

Persuasion through DissonanceTheory into practice• Don’t promise lavish benefits• Work to develop a friendly relationship with the subject – to avoid

triggering selective exposure screening, and to be there after compliance when postdecision dissonance arises

• Offer just enough encouragement (minimal justification)• Avoid making an offer the subject cannot refuse – as long as

counterattitudinal actions are freely chosen and publicly taken, people adopt beliefs to support what they’ve done

• Induce compliance by getting the subject to grasp the potential downside of that behavior for others (personal responsibility for negative outcomes)

Critique• Cognitive dissonance may not be falsifiable.

– Festinger never specified a reliable way to detect the degree of dissonance a person experiences (a dissonance thermometer). • Patricia Devine applauds researchers who have attempted to

gauge the arousal component of dissonance. – Daryl Bem believes that self-perception is a much simpler

explanation of attitude change than cognitive dissonance is. • His version of the $1/$20 experiment supports his

contention. • Bem suggests that cognitive dissonance does not follow the

rule of parsimony.– Despite detractors, cognitive dissonance theory has energized

objective scholars of communication for 50 years.

Cialdini

Milgram, 1963• The experimenter (E) orders the

teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level

Milgram

• Most of the participants (teacher) gave the full shocks to the subjects – shocks that would have been lethal if real

• Deep-seated sense of authority extorts compliance

Authority

• • Height: We overestimate height based on

authority• Suit: Uniform- the bum vs. the suit• Titles: lawyer, professor, doctor• Prestige autos: Who do we honk at most?

Bandura