Theories of Comm-Individu Assign

7/28/2019 Theories of Comm-Individu Assign

1/15

MCC 501

THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION

FIRST SEMESTER, 2011/2012

ASSIGNMENT 1

ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION THEORY

(INDIVIDUAL PROJECT)

NAME : GOMALA A/P SUKUMARAN

ID NO : 113008044

PROGRAMME : MASTER IN COMMUNICATION

LECTURERS NAME : DR.MOHD NIZAM OSMAN


2/15

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

2.0 UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY..................................................................2

2.1 ASSUMPTIONS OF URT.................................................................................3

2.2 URT MODEL.....................................................................................................3

2.3 CRITIQUE ON URT.......................................................................................4-5

3.0 SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY...........................................................................6

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS ON SPT..................................................................................7

3.2 STAGES OF THE SPT.......................................................................................7

3.3 THE ONION ANALOGY.................................................................................8

3.4 CRITIQUE ON SPT...........................................................................................9

4.0 COMMUNICATION SITUATION..............................................................................10

5.0 USE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY IN THE COMMUNICATION ...........

SITUATION..................................................................................................................11

6.0 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................12

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................13


3/15

1.0 Introduction

Communication is a social process in which individuals employ symbols to establish and

interpret meaning in their environment.Communication involves people and interactions,

whether face-to-face or online who acts as senders and receivers.Communication is a process

that it is ongoing and unending. (West, 2010)

Each day the decision we make, the media we look into, and the relationships we experience

can be explained by communication theory.

Communication theory helps us to understand other people and their communities, the media

and our association with families, friends, roommates and companions. Communication

theory makes it easier to understand ourselves.

There are over sixty communication theories which has been introduced by Dr.Nizam. I will

be using only two communication theories for this assignment. That includes,

Uncertainty Reduction Theory Social Penetration Theory


4/15

2.0 Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Sometimes called Initial Interaction Theory, Uncertainty Reduction Theory was originated by

Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese in 1975.Berger and Calabreses goal in contructing this

theory was to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainties between strangers

engaging in their first conversation together.Berger and Calabrase believe that when strangers

first meet, they are primarily concerned with increasing predictability in an effort to make

sense out of theor communication experience.

Prediction can be defined as the ability to forecast the behavioral options likely to be chosen

from a range of possible options.Explanation refers to attempts to intrepret the meaning of

past actions in a relationship.These two conceptsprediction and explanationmake up the

two primary subprocess of uncertainty reduction theory.

After Berger and Calabrase (1975) originated their theory, it was later slightly elaborated

(Berger, 1979; Berger and Bradac, 1982).The current version of the theory suggests that there

are two types of uncertainty in initial encounters : cognitive and behavioral. Our cognitions

refer to the beliefs and attitudes that we and others hold. Cognitive uncertainty, therefore,

refers to the degree of uncertainty associated with those beliefs and attitudes.Behavioral

uncertainty, on the other hand, pertains to the extent to which behaviour is predictable in a

given situation.

Berger and Calabrese (1975) argued that uncertainty reduction has both proactive and

retroactive processes. Proactive uncertainty reduction theory comes into play when a person

thinks about communication options before actually engaging with another person.Retroactive

uncertainty reduction consists of attempts to explain behaviour after the encounter itself.

Berger and Calabrese suggest that uncertainty is related to seven other concepts rooted in

communcation and relational development : verbal output, non verbal warmth (such as

pleasant vocal tone and leaning forward), information seeking (asking questions), self-

disclosure, reciprocity of disclosure, similarity, and liking. Each of these works in conjuntion

with the others so that interactants can reduce some of their uncertainty. (West, 2010)


5/15

2.1 Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Theories are frequently grounded in assumptions that reflect the worldview of the theorists.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory is no exception. The following assumptions frame this theory

People experience uncertainty in interpersonal settings. Uncertainty is an aversive state, generating cognitive stress. When strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce their uncertainty or to

increase predictablity.

Interpersonal communication is a developmental process that occurs through stages. Interpersonal communication is the primary means of uncertainty reduction. The quantity and nature of information that people share change through time. It is possible to predictpeoples behaviour in a lawlike fashion.

2.2 Uncertainty Reduction Model

(Brashers, 2010)


6/15

2.3 Critiques on Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Over a decade after the publication of the original theory, Berger admitted that Uncertainty

Reduction Theory "contains some propositions of dubious validity" . Although URT has

stimulated a great deal of discussion and research, it also has been criticized. Basically, the

critics find fault in two areas of the theory: the assumptions and its validity.

Some researchers believe that the major assumptions of the theory are flawed. Michael

Sunnafrank (1986) argues that reducing uncertainty about the self and another in an initial

encounter is not an individual's primary concern. Instead, Sunnafrank argues, "a more primary

goal is the maximization of relational outcomes" . Sunnafrank calls for a reformulation of

URT that takes into account the importance of predicted outcomes during initial interactions.

This has come to be known as predicted outcome value (POV). Berger's (1986) response to

Sunnafrank is that outcomes cannot be predicted without knowledge and reduced uncertainty

about oneself, one's partner, and one's relationship. It is Berger's contention that uncertainty

reduction is independent of as well as necessary to predicted outcome values. In fact, he

believes that if one remains highly uncertain, there really are no predicted outcome values.

Further, Berger responds to Sunnafrank's critique by noting that the act of predicting an

outcome serves as a means to reduce uncertainty. Thus, Berger concludes that Sunnafrank has

simply expanded the scope of URT rather than offering an alternative to it.

The second area of criticism of URT has to do with its validity. Recall that even Berger

(1987) has admitted some validity problems. Yet, he is not willing to give up on the theory.

Some of his more skeptical colleagues, however, assert that given the tight logical structure of

an axiomatic theory, if one building block is wrong, then much of the resulting theory is

suspect. Kathy Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990) point to Axiom 3, which suggests

that high uncertainty causes high levels of information-seeking behavior, as problematic.

Their study of over a thousand students failed to find support for the third axiom. Instead,they found that "wantingknowledge rather than lackingknowledge is what promotes

information-seeking in initial encounters with others" . Kellermann and Reynolds point out

that many times we may be uncertain about another but because we have no interest in the

other, we are not motivated to reduce our uncertainties by information-seeking behaviors.

People engage in communication, therefore, not to reduce uncertainty but because they care

about the other, are interested in the other, or both

Uncertainty Reduction Theory has made a very important contribution to the field of

communication, even if it does not fully explain the communication in initial encounters


7/15

between strangers. It marks the beginning of communication researchers focusing on their

own discipline for theoretical explanations rather than borrowing theories from other

disciplines. Further, it provides an ongoing dialogue as researchers continue to debate the

validity of uncertainty reduction as a primary issue in relationship development.


8/15

3.0 Social Penetration Theory

When we say were close to someone, we often act as though others understand precisely

what we mean. That is not always the case, however. Saying that you are close or intimate

with someone may not be universally understood.

To understand relational closeness between two people, Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor

(1973) conceptualized Social Penetration Theory (SPT). The two conducted extensive study

in the area of social bonding among various types of couples. Their theory illustrates a pattern

of relationship development, a process that they identified as social penetration.

Social penetration refers to a process of relationship bonding whereby individuals move from

superficial communication to more intimate communication. According to Altman andTaylor, intimacy involves more than physical initmacy; other dimensions of intimacy include

intellectual and emotional and the extent to which a couple share activities (West and

Turner,2009). The social penetration process, includes verbal behaviors (the words we use),

nonverbal behaviors (our body posture, the extent to which we smile, and so forth), and

environmentally oriented behaviors (the space between communicators, the physical objects

present in the environment, and so forth.

Altman and Taylor (1973) believe that peoples relationship vary tremendously in their social

penetration . From husband-wife to supervisor-employee to golf partners to physician-patient,

the theorists conclude that relationships involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or

degree of social penetration. The authors note that relationships follow some particular

trajectory, or pathway to closeness.


9/15

3.1 Assumptions of Social Penetration Theory

Social Penetration Theory (called a stage theory by Mongeau & Henningsen, 2008) has

enjoyed widespread acceptance by a number of scholars in the communication discipline. Part

of the reason for the theorys appeal is its straightforward approach to relationship

development. Although we alluded to some assumptions earlier, we will explore the following

assumptions that guide SPT:

Relationships progress from nonintimate to intimate. Relational development is generally systematic and predictable. Relational devlopment includes depenetration and dissolution. Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development.

3.2 Stages of the Social Penetration Process

The decision about whether a potential relationship appears satisfying is not immediate.

Social Penetration Theory is viewed as a Stage theory. Relationship development occurs in

a rather systematic manner, and decisions about whether people want to remain in a

relationship are not usually made quickly. Not all relationships go through this process, and

those that do are not always romantic relationships.

Figure 1 : Stages of Social Penetration Theory

ORIENTATION

Revealing bits of

ourselves toothers.

EXPLORATORY

AFFECTIVE

EXCHANGE

Emergence of anindividual's

personality

AFFECTIVE

EXCHANGE

Spontaneous

communication;use of personal

idioms

STABLE EXCHANGE

Efficient

communication;

establishment of apersonal system of

communication


10/15

3.3 The Onion Analogy

Theorists believe that people can be compared to an onion.

The outer layeris the individuals public image or what is seen with the naked eye. Reciprocity the process whereby one persons openness leads to others openness. It

has been shown to be significant in both established and new relationships.

Penetration can be viewed along two dimensions:

Breadthrefers to the number of various topics discussed in the relationship. Breadthtime pertains to the amount of time that relational partners spend communicating with

each other about other topics.

Depthrefers to the degree of intimacy that guides topic discussions.


11/15

3.4 Critique on Social Penetration Theory

3.4.1 Heurism

There can be no doubt that Social Penetration Theory and the concept of self disclosure has

yielded literally hundreds of studies. Therefore, we believe SPT is a highly heuristic theory.

3.4.2 Scope

One could say that the scope of SPT is limited. Some scholars contend that self disclosure in

particular may be too narrowly interpreted. People are constantly changing, they argue that

what is considered to be self-disclosure often depends on the attitudes of a relational partner.


12/15

4.0 Communication Situation

As soon as completing my diploma, It was finally my time to continue degree. I browsed on

the net looking for a good university whereelse my other friends had already applied for other

universities. Finally after few consideration I choosed KLIUC to pursue my degree in

Corporate Communication. It was mid February when I came to register as a student. I was

told that the orientation was around March and it was compulsory for everyone to attend. I

had to stay in hostel and was given double sharing room. During the registration week, i

enquired the lady in the office regarding my roomate. Eventually, she gave me her full name

and my luck that I found her through facebook.We had checked out one another on Facebook,

emailed each other, and talked on the phone few times, so we knew quite a bit about each

other.When we met, we started talking each other. We spent a lot of time telling stories about

our families and friends, and talking about what we looked for in a partner.

After several weeks we became closer. We started going out for movies together and hang out

together. We started exploring each other better by introducing our parents as well. Our

orietation was for a week, but we decided not attend as we felt it was not important for us.

During the one week we got to know each other better and I knew a lot about her family, her

likes and dislikes and so on.

During the second week, all the classes had started. We had to balance our desire to hang-out

each other with the need to be alone. This is because I am a communication student

meanwhile she is an engineering student.It was going to be give-andtake because our

schedules were completely opposite. Eventually, we both became great friends and we still

keep in touch everyday even tough we are far apart. We will make it an effort to send at least

one sms in a day to strengthen our relationship as shes from Pulau Pinang and and I am from

Seremban. Thus, we find it difficult to meet. We will only be able to meet once a year during

Chinese New Year holidays.


13/15

5.0 Use of Communication Theory in the Communication Situation

First, we as roomates supported the Uncertainty Reduction Theoryo We gathered a lot of information about each other by asking question.o This means we reduce the uncertainty about each other.o More information was shared among us to enhance our relationships.

Next, we as roomates supported the Social Penetration Theoryo We self-dislcosed about each other.o We can relate this to the onion metaphor whereby the outer layer will her

physical appreance. I would judge her by her looks, of what kind person.

o Next is the amount of information that we want to reveal to each other. This iswhen we discussed about each others families and even intoduced our parent.

o Breadth is when we discussed about our personal information, whereby somepersonal information can only be disclosed to some close friends.

o As time goes on we frequently discussed about our personal problems andoften find solutions together.


14/15

6.0 Conclusion

Each day the decision we make, the media we look into, and the relationships we experience

can be explained by communication theory.

Communication theory helps us to understand other people and their communities, the media

and our association with families, friends, roommates and companions. Communication

theory makes it easier to understand ourselves.

I have discussed two theories in this assignment. Namely

Uncertainty Reduction Theory Social Penetration Theory

I have also included a communication situation that happened in my life and how it relates to

those mentioned theories. When strangers meet, their primary focus is on reducing their level

of uncertainty in the situation because uncertainty is uncomfortable. People can be uncertain

on two different levels: behavioral and cognitive. They may be unsure of how to behave (or

how the other person will behave) and they may also be unsure of what they think of the other

person and what the other person thinks of them. High levels of uncertainty are related to a

variety of verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

Inrerpersonal relationships evolve in some gradual and predictable fashion. Social

Peneteration theorists believe that self-dislcosure is the primary way that superficial

relationships progress to intimate relationships. Although self-dislcosure can lead to more

intimate relationships, it can also leave one or more persons vulnerable.


15/15

7.0 Bibliography

1. Brashers. (2010, September 7).Interpersonal Communication and Relations. RetrievedDecember 8th , 2011, from University of Twente:

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal%20Communi

cation%20and%20Relations/Uncertainty_Reduction_Theory.doc/

2. Devito, J. A. (2005).Messages Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. United StatesOf America: Pearson Education,Inc.

3. Moss, D. S. (2009, January 07).Psychlopedia -- Key theories -- Social theories. RetrievedDecember 8th , 2011, from Psycholopedia.com: http://www.psych-

it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=252

4. S.W, L. J. (1999). Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.5. Solomon, D. H. (2008). Uncertainty reduction theory. Retrieved December 8th, 2011, from

International Encylopedia of Communication.

6. Unknown. (2011, October 12). Communication Theory. Retrieved December 8th, 2011, fromWikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Uncertainty_Reduction

7. West, R. (2010).Introducing Communication Theory. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.

Documents

Theories of Comm-Individu Assign