Theories
of Human
Communication
Second Edition
Stephen W. Littlejohn
.
.
M
HI
II
IM
>!»
Theories
of Human
Communication
SECOND EDITION
Theories
of Human
Communication
SECOND EDITION
Stephen W. Littlejohn
Humboldt
State University
Wadsworth Publishing Company
Belmont, California
A Division
of Wadsworth,
Inc.
Communications
Production: Del
Designer: John
Editor: Kristine Clerkin
Mar
Associates
Blumer. Copyright© 1969. Reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc.
60 — 65 , 71 : From Communication Rules: Theory and Research by Susan B.
Shimanoff. Copyright© 1980 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission
of Sage Publications. 66- 67, 69 - 70 , 72 From Communication Action and Meaning
1980 by Praeger
by W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen. Copyright
:
©
by permission of Praeger Publishers. 69 From Genetic
“The Development of Listener Adapted Communicafrom Different Social-Class Backgrounds,” by
Kerby T. Alvy. Copyright ©1973. Reprinted by permission of The Journal
Press. 78 84 From The Psychology of Language byj. A. Fodor, et al. Copyright
1974 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book
Company. 87- 88 From Kinesics and Context by Ray Birdwhistell. Copyright©
1970 by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Reprinted by permission of the
University of Pennsylvania Press. 96- 97 From Philosophy in a New Key by
1942 by Harvard University Press. Reprinted by
Susanne Langer. Copyright
Publishers. Reprinted
Odam
:
Psychology Monographs,
tion in Grade-School Children
Copy
Editor: Jerilyn
Emori
,
:
©
Technical Illustrator: Stephen Harrison
:
:
©
1983 by Wadsworth, Inc. All rights reserved. No
part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by
©
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, California 94002, a division of
Wadsworth,
Inc.
permission of Harvard University Press. 99 From American Psychologist, “On
Understanding and Creating Sentences,” by Charles Osgood. Copyright
1963. Reprinted by permission of The American Psychological Association and
the author. 101 From The Measurement of Meaning by C. Osgood, G. Suci, and
:
©
:
©
1957 by the Board of Trustees of the University
Tannenbaum. Copyright
of Illinois. Reprinted by permission of the University of Illinois Press. 116 118
From The Mathematical Theory of Communication by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver. Copyright© 1949 by the Board of Trustees of the University of
Illinois. Reprinted by permission of the University of Illinois Press. 123 124
P.
,
of
:
Appleton-Century-Crofts. Reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc. 168 ,
From Explorations in Interpersonal Communication, “A Relational Approach to Interpersonal Communication,” by Frank E. Millar and L. Edna
170 , 172
Printed in the United States of America
7 8 9
10—87
:
:
From Communication: The Study of Human Interaction, “Human Information
Processing,” by C. David Mortensen. Copyright© 1972 by McGraw-Hill.
Reprinted by permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company. 135 From Studies
Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor ofJames Albert Winans, “The Literary
Criticism of Oratory”, by Herbert Wichelns. Copyright© 1925 by
:
Rogers. Copyright ©1976. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications 171
From Human Communication Research, by Malcolm Parks. Copyright© 1977.
Reprinted by permission of International Communication Association and the
:
From Leaders of Schools: FIRO Theory Applied to Administrators by
Will Schutz. Copyright© 1977. Reprinted by permission of University Associates. 174 , 175 177 From Firo: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal
author. 174 :
,
:
Behavior by William Schutz. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. Reprinted as
The Interpersonal Underworld. Copyright© 1966, Science and Behavior Books.
—
Reprinted by permission of Science and Behavior Books. 178 179 From Frame
ISBN
:
An Essay on the Organization of Experience by Erving Goffman.
Copyright© 1959 by Erving Goffman. Reprinted by permission of Doubleday
and Company. 179 - 180 From The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving
Goffman. Copyright© 1959 by Erving Goffman. Reprinted by permission of
Doubleday and Company. 182- 184 From Self and Others by R. D. Laing.
Copyright© 1969. Reprinted by permission of Tavistock Publications. 185187 From The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations by Fritz Heider. Copyright
1958. Reprinted by permission of the author. 187 190 From American
Analysis:
:
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
:
:
Littlejohn, Stephen
W.
©
Theories of human communication.
:
Psychologist, “The Process of Causal Attribution,” by Harold Kelley. Copyright
©1973. Reprinted by permission of The American Psychological Association
and the author. 193 - 195 From Of Human Interaction by Joseph Luft. Copyright
:
©
1969 by the National Press. Reprinted by permission of Mayfield Publishing
Company (formerly National Press Books). 202—203 From The Acquaintance
Process by Theodore M. Newcomb. Copyright© 1961. Reprinted by permis-
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1.
001.5
Communication
82-21938
ISBN
:
I.
Title.
P90.L48
0-543-01280-9
211 -213 From
“A Transactional Paradigm of Verbalized Social Conflict”, by C. David Mortensen. Copyright© 1974. Reprinted
by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc. 217— 218 222— 227 From Group Dynamics:
The Psychology of Small Group Behavior by Marvin E. Shaw. Copyright© 1981.
Reprinted by permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company. 232—235 From
Small Group Decision Making by B. Aubrey Fisher. Copyright© 1980. Reprinted by permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company,. 237 239 From Vic1972. Reprinted by permistims of Groupthink by Irving L. Janis. Copyright
sion of Houghlin Mifflin Company. 255- 256 258 From Communicating and
Organizing by Farace, Monge, and Russell. Copyright© 1977. Reprinted by
permission of Addison-Wesley. 266- 268 From The Medium is the Massage by
Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, produced by Jerome Agel. Copyright©
1967. Reprinted by permission of Bantam Books. 266 269 From Understanding
Media by Marshall McLuhan. Copyright© 1964. Reprinted by permission of
McGraw-Hill Book Company. 291 -293 From Communication Research, “A
Dependency Model of Mass Media Effects”, by S. J. Ball-Rokeach and M. L.
De Fleur. Copyright© 1976. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.
sion of Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Perspectives on
Communication
CBS College Publishing.
:
in Conflict,
:
,
:
:
©
Acknowledgments
13 15- 16 From The Conduct of Inquiry by Abraham
Kaplan. Copyright©
:
,
1964. Reprinted by permission of Harper & Row Publishers. 41 42 , 71 : From
Communication Quarterly, “Alternative Perspectives for the Study of Human
Communication: Critique and Response,” by Jesse Delia. Copyright© 1977.
30 - 32 : From The Ghost in
Quarterly.
Reprinted by permission of Communication
1968 by Arthur Koestler. Rethe Machine by Arthur Koestler. Copyright
printed by permission of Macmillan Publishing Co. and A. D. Peters and Co.
Ltd. 50 -52 : From Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method by Herbert
©
,
:
:
:
:
Contents
PARTI
INTRODUCTION
1
|
Chapter 1
The Nature of Communication Theory 3
What Is Communication Theory? 3
Why Study Communication Theory? 4
The Academic Study of Communication 4
Defining Communication 5
An Organizing Framework 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 2
Theory in the Process of Inquiry 9
The Process of Inquiry in Communication
A Basic Model of Inquiry 9
|
9
|
|
Types of Scholarship 10
The Nature of Theory 12
The Functions of Theory 13
Theory Development and Change
Concepts in Theories 16
|
|
|
14
|
|
16
Explanation in Theories
Philosophical Issues in the Study of Communication
Communication Metatheory 18
19
Issues of Epistemology
Issues of Ontology 21
Issues of Perspective 22
How to Evaluate a Communication Theory 23
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
Theoretical Scope
|
Appropriateness 24
24
Heuristic Value
|
|
24
Parsimony 24
Validity
|
|
What Do We Know about Communication Theory?
24
|
CONTENTS
PART
II
GENERAL THEORIES 27
|
Chapter 3
General System Theory and Cybernetics
Fundamental System Concepts 29
29
|
|
What
What
29
33
Is Cybernetics?
General System Theory as an Approach to Knowledge 37
Communication as a System 39
41
Criticism of System Theory
What Do We Know about Communication as a System? 43
Is
a System?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4
Symbolic Interactionism and Rules Theory 45
Symbolic Interactionism 45
Foundations: George Herbert Mead 47
Herbert Blumer and the Chicago School 50
Manford Kuhn and the Iowa School 53
The Dramatism of Kenneth Burke 55
58
Criticism of Symbolic Interactionism
The Rules Approach to Communication 60
Approaches to Rules 61
Shimanoff’s Integrative Approach 62
Coordinated Management of Meaning 66
Criticism of the Rules Approach
71
What Do We Know about Communication as Symbolic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72
Interaction?
|
PART III
THEMATIC THEORIES
75
|
Chapter 5
Theories of Language and Nonverbal Coding
Theories of Language 77
77
|
|
78
Generative Grammar 80
Classical Linguistics
|
|
85
Criticism of Generative Grammar
Theories of Nonverbal Communication 86
Structural Theories
87
Functional Theories 90
|
|
|
|
Criticism
93
What Do We Know about Language and Nonverbal Coding?
|
vi
93
|
CONTENTS
Chapter 6
Theories of Meaning 95
Representational Theories of Meaning 95
The Approach of Richards 95
Langer’s Theory of Symbols 96
Osgood’s Theory of Meaning 99
103
Criticism of Representational Theories
Ordinary Language Philosophy 103
Foundations: Wittgenstein and Austin 104
104
Searle's Theory of Speech Acts
107
Criticism of Ordinary Language Philosophy
Language and Experience 107
108
Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
Theory
Linguistic Relativity
|
Criticism of Experiential
|
What Do We Know about Meaning?
111
111
|
112
Postscript
|
Chapter 7
Theories of Information and Information Processing
Information Theory 115
1 16
Technical Information Theory
Semantic Information 119
An Effectiveness Approach to Information 120
122
Criticism
Theories of Information Processing 123
“Standard Theory” 123
126
Criticism of Standard Theory
126
Cognitive Complexity
131
Criticism of Cognitive Complexity
What Do We Know about Information? 132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 8
Theories of Persuasion 133
Humanistic Foundations: Rhetorical Theory
133
Aristotelian Rhetorical Theory
Contemporary Approaches 135
136
Criticism
|
133
|
|
|
|
Contemporary Applications: The Yale Tradition
An Organizing Model 136
The Persuasibility Problem 137
136
|
|
|
141
Criticism
Information-Processing Theories of Persuasion
141
Information-Integration Theory
|
|
Social Judgment
144
Theory
|
141
|
CONTENTS
Theories of Cognitive Reorganization and Persuasion
Social Learning Theory
147
Theories of Cognitive Consistency 148
146
|
|
|
What Do We Know about Persuasion?
156
|
PART IV
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
159
|
Chapter 9
Interpersonal Contexts
I:
Theories of Relationship, Presentation,
and Perception
161
161
|
Introduction
|
Contexts of Communication
161
Interpersonal Communication?
161
Functions of Interpersonal Communication 162
Relational Communication
164
Origins of Relational Theory
165
Extensions: The Palo Alto Group
166
Recent Developments 168
Criticism
172
Theories of Self- Presentation
173
|
What Is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schutz’s Psychological
Approach
177
|
Goffman’s Social Approach
Criticism
180
177
|
|
Interpersonal Perception and Attribution
Perception and Metaperception
182
181
|
|
Heider’s Attribution Theory
|
Kelley’s Attribution
Theory
185
187
|
190
Criticism
[
What Do We Know about
Relational
Communication?
191
|
Chapter 10
Interpersonal Contexts
II:
Theories of Disclosure, Attraction, and
193
Conflict
|
Theories of Disclosure and Understanding
Johari Window
193
Rogers's Theory of Congruence
195
193
|
|
|
196
Self-disclosure
|
198
Criticism
|
Rhetorical Sensitivity as
an Alternative View
199
|
viii
CONTENTS
Interpersonal Attraction and Relational Maintenance
201
|
Mehrabian's Concept of Immediacy
201
|
Newcomb’s
Approach 202
Byrne’s Reinforcement Approach 204
Thibaut and Kelley’s Theory of Exchange
Criticism
207
Social Conflict
209
Game Theory 209
Transactional Approach 211
Persuasion and Conflict 213
Cognitive
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
|
|
214
Criticism
|
What Do We Know about Factors of Interpersonal
Communication? 215
|
Chapter 11
Interpersonal Contexts III: Theories of Groups and
Organizations 217
Theories of Group Communication 217
|
|
Group Dynamics 218
Theories of Group Interaction
|
|
227
Theories of Interpersonal Effects in Groups 236
Theories of Organizational Communication 240
Weber’s Classical Bureaucratic Theory 241
Human Relations School 243
|
|
|
|
The Systems Approach 252
What Do We Know about Communication in Groups and
|
Organizations?
261
|
Chapter 12
The Mediated Context: Theories of Mass Communication
Theories of Audience and Diffusion 264
Theories of Mass Society 264
Theories of Diffusion 274
Communication Effects and Functions 280
The Reinforcement Approach 281
The Agenda-setting Function 284
Early Functional Theories 284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses and
Gratifications Approach
285
Dependency Theory 291
What Do We Know about Mass Communication?
|
|
IX
|
294
263
|
CONTENTS
PART V
CAPSTONE
297
|
Chapter 13
The Status of Human Communication Theory 299
The Study of Human Communication 299
The Multitheoretical Tradition 299
300
Multidisciplinary Roots
The Emergence of Communication as a Field 301
The Status of Communication Theory 301
Types of Theory 301
Philosophical Issues 302
302
Definitions of Communication
Strengths and Weaknesses 303
Major Issues in Communication Theory 304
General System Theory and Cybernetics 304
Symbolic Interaction and Rules 304
Language 305
Meaning 305
Information 306
Persuasion 306
Interpersonal Contexts: Dyadic Communication 306
Interpersonal Communication: Groups and Organizations
Mass Communication 308
The Future of Communication Theory 308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
310
Bibliography
|
Author Index
335
|
338
Subject Index
|
X
307
|
Preface
study of human communication involves
copious and diverse scholarship. This is both a
blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it
philosophical issues, which sets the stage for
analysis
are
because it has led to disarray and confusion
about what is known. The field of communication badly needs integration. This book is the
The aim of
the project
is
to
make
available,
in which theoretical contributions
can be compared, evaluated, and integrated.
first
edition of Theories of
was an
edition
initial
Human Com-
step in this direction.
summarized and organized
many theories related to various themes of
communication. Two major weaknesses were
first
apparent in that edition.
First,
were organized according
although theories
to topic,
little
gration resulted. Second, theories were
overcome
I
attempted to
took the role of
was not
readily
critic to
develop
theories in an area.
In addition, the capstone chapter has been
completely revised. Its new aim is to present an
assesssment of the status of communication
theory at this time. It is a very personal statement with which others may or may not agree.
these difficulties.
Here I present my analysis of the field of communication, the status of communication
treated separately, so that the student can
and contribution of each.
Extensive footnotes and references provide
tools for further exploration of the theories and
clearly see the focus
theory
at this
time including
weaknesses, and
its
strengths and
a projection for the future
of
communication theory.
You
topics included.
Several new features have been added to the
enhance its usefulness. After looking
through the present edition, you will not doubt
will notice in this edition that
the topics
text to
that
I
criticism
inte-
This second edition retains the essential features of the first. It summarizes a large number
of theories from several disciplines. Each theory
is
and these are
sum-
marized, but no evaluation was presented. This
edition seeks to
2,
At the end of each chapter is a new section
summarizing what we know about the chapter’s theme. These sections are not intended as
point-by-point summaries. Nor are they detailed lists of facts or suppositions about aspects
of communication. Rather, these brief sections
are intended to present in general form the consensus of most knowledgeable scholars about
the theme of the chapter. In other words these
sections present points of general agreement or
abstractions supported by the majority of
the
framework
The
Chapter
original evaluation.
of these theories more accessible to the
The
where such
cases
student of communication and to provide a
munication
in
capture the spirit of published criticism, but in
of a project begun about ten years ago to
bring together in a single volume many of the
major theories of communication from various
insights
developed
applied directly or indirectly to the theories in
each chapter. For the most part
result
fields.
of theories.
Perhaps the most important addition is the
evaluation of the theories. Evaluative criteria
has provided a rich source of ideas and insights
into an elusive theme of human life. It is a curse
of the
earlier version
most of
remain
intact,
presented in roughly the same order. However,
there
is
considerable shift in emphasis from one
theme
major reworking of the
The discussion of theory in the first
two chapters has been expanded and updated;
to another. For example, theories of
interpersonal communication, relevant to
dyadic interaction, have been expanded into
an important addition
two chapters
it
constitutes a
original.
is
the discussion of
xi
to reflect the relative increase in
I
PREFACE
the
amount of theory building
in that area. In
fact
the conceptualization of
communication
contexts has been reworked slightly, as reflected
in chapter titles, because of what I believe are
changing perspectives in the field.
Theories of Human Communication
is
a
highly
wish to present enough mateof the field and to
allow the student to see similarities and differences among theories, but to include all major
theories related to communication would have
been impossible. The need to remain current
selective effort.
rial
I
to depict the breadth
required that several
The
addition of this
Kevin Howat
and Sammy Reist for their keen attention to
documentary detail; and to Charlotte Brown
for a beautiful manuscript.
I
am especially indebted to Richard N.
Armstrong, State University of New York,
Brockport; Fred L. Casmir, Pepperdine University; Kenneth N. Cissna, University of
South Florida, Tampa; Forrest Conklin, University of Northern Iowa; John E. Crawford,
Arizona State University, Tempe; Frank Dance,
new theories be added.
new material along with
and evaluation required that other
theories be dropped for space reasons. I felt that
University of Denver; Loren Dickinson, Walla
Walla College; Robert Emmery, California
certain old theories should be retained, because
they were either highly influential or foun-
Even though such
theories are
no
however,
possible.
veys of
ments
I
I
to
have kept the book as up to date as
use of anthologies, sur-
sippi State
Diego
made heavy
as possible to experts in
San
Rebecca Rubin, Cleve-
University; Stephen King,
State University;
land State University; R. C. Ruechelle, Cali-
and other secondary treatguide my selections and summaries,
much
State University; Blaine Goss,
versity of
development. In the main,
literature,
deferring as
Fullerton; Lawrence Frey,
UniOklahoma; Mark Hickson, Missis-
State University,
Wayne
longer in vogue, they provide a sense of tradition and theory
fornia State College, Stanislaus;
logical
Brigham Young University.
Mostly, I would like to thank
a
colleague, and wife
In summary, I see the second edition as a
and necessary step in the development of
long-term project on the integration of human
the people
who
Roger
Smitter,
Albion College; John Sutterhoff, California
State University, Chico; and Gordon Whiting,
each
area.
communication theory.
I would like to express
of the
their
analysis
dational.
for his faith in the value
Sandra Craig and Nancy Sjoberg for
book sense and managerial skills; to Jerilyn
Emori for her tireless editorial eagle eye; to
John Odam and Steve Harrison for their design
and artistic talents; to Karen Massetti-Miller
project; to
my best friend,
Karen Foss for her encour-
agement and concern, urging and respite,
my
cism and confidence.
appreciation to
helped create this book: to
xii
criti-
PART
I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter
1
The Nature of Communication Theory
Chapter 2
Theory in the Process of Inquiry
CHAPTER
The Nature
of Communication
Theory
I
As
long as people have wondered about the
world, they have been intrigued by the mysteries of their own nature. The most common-
to devise explanations
place activities of our lives
exercise because
human
nature
we
— those
take for granted
puzzles of the largest magnitude
munication professors often ask their students
of certain aspects of
communication. This task is a theory-building
realms of
— become
when we
is
The study of how people
one another has occupied a major porof the world’s mental energy.
conceptualize them.
relate to
tion
Communication
intertwined with
is
all
At these times we may modify what
think the world is like.
Although the word theory can be used to
describe the educated guesswork of laypersons,
are flawed.
life. Any study of human activity must
touch on communication processes in one form
Some
scholars treat
we
communication
while others take communication for
granted without making it the focus of their
as central,
academics use the word somewhat differently.
lar
idea
book we are concerned with the
of communication as central to human life.
is
Our
guiding question
how
scholars in a
wide
and explained
In a sense this
time.
but
how some of the pieces have been
tutes an adequate theory
this
of their philosophical assumptions, their claims
about what communication involves, and their
strengths and weaknesses. You will find a basis
for making your own decisions about which
theories should and. should not be included in
our body of knowledge about communication.
What Is Communication Theory?
phenomenon
is
to explain or represent
a theory.
As discussed
in the
next chapter,
tualization
of communication. In
will read about a wide variety of
These theories are discussed in terms
book you
theories.
a
communication theory usually refers
body of theories that makes up our understanding of the communication process.
Much disagreement exists about what constito the
shaped and joined.
one sense any attempt
the scholar’s best repre-
required.
The term
does present several answers that
have been proposed. In other words this book
does not complete the puzzle of communication
In
is
will see in the next chapter, theory
is not an easy task. A great deal of
focused observing, hypothesizing, and revising
is
it
but illustrates
As you
building
it is
a synthesis of many contemporary theories of
communication. The book does not provide the
answer to questions we ask about communica-
tion,
in this sense
sentation of the state of affairs at any given
describes a part of our
quest to understand ourselves. Specifically,
is like,
Theory
human communication.
book
what an experibased on systematic observation.
the scholar’s construction of
ence
variety of traditions have conceptualized, described,
make it their work to study a particukind of experience with a keen eye. A theory
Scholars
study. In this
is
involves stating clearly what
guide us in making decisions and taking actions. Sometimes we are wrong; our theories
of
human
or another.
it
believed to be happening in communication.
Indeed, everybody operates by theory much of
the time. Our theories consist of ideas that
try to
a theory is someone’s concepof an observed set of events. Com-
3
—
INTRODUCTION
paper, the cartographer a picture of a ter-
on
Why Study Communication Theory?
rain.
Besides fulfilling the student’s curiosity about
the student sees confused and
—
communication meeting the need to know
the study of communication theory is valuable
on other grounds. Communication is one of
our most pervasive, important, and complex
of behavior. The
clusters
ability to
Looking
at a
bubble-chamber photograph,
broken lines,
the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear
events .” 2
The basic justification for studying
of communication is that they provide
of useful conceptual tools.
theories
a set
communi-
on a higher level separates human beings
from other animals. Our daily lives are strongly
affected by our own communication with
others as well as by messages from distant and
The Academic Study of Communication
Communication theory is diverse because
persons. If there is a need to know
about our world, that need extends to all
aspects of human behavior, especially commu-
munication
cate
communication itself
complex. Looking for
unknown
a
nication.
Specifically, an
toward becoming
a
the student asks
how
to
a better
theory
A
is
a
way
theoretical
An
that
man who
many
sees
2.
Thomas
S.
book represent
Kuhn, The
a
wide array of
Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 111.
and become increasingly adaptable and flexible.
To borrow some analogies from Kuhn: “Look-
3. For an excellent case in favor of multiple approaches to
communication, see John Waite Bowers and James J.
Bradac, “Issues in Communication Theory: A Metatheoret-
ing at a contour map, the student sees lines
ical
Patterns of Discovery
departments, just as the theories de-
scribed in this
else has seen
hitching of blinders, helps one transcend habits
N. R. Hanson,
a tra-
nary cooperation is essential. University
courses related to communication are found in
before .” 1 This widening of perception, the un-
University Press, 1961),
one should avoid identification with
ditional discipline but only that interdiscipli-
“The paradigm observer is not
man who sees and reports what all normal
writes:
what no one
is
view communication from the
narrow confines of specific academic disciplines. Because disciplines are somewhat arbitrary, disciplinary divisions do not necessarily
provide the best method of packaging knowledge. This statement is not meant to suggest
to obtain this understanding.
in familiar objects
3
.
obstacle to a multitheoretical approach
the tendency to
The study of communication
observers see and report, but the
approach to the complex process of
communication
study of communication theory will cause the
student to see things never seen before. N. R.
the
of
from
clusters
useful for the work to be undertaken. We
should welcome rather than avoid a multi-
colleague of mine used to say that the
Hanson
numerous
more
ing communication and an ability to adapt to
circumstances.
process consisting of
and each theory provides insights of its own. Of course, all theories are not
equally valid or useful, and any particular investigator may find a specific theory or theories
more competent, adaptive
when
com-
a different angle,
communicator, the teacher
provides a list of recipes. This approach is a
beginning, but the communication process is
too complex to be approached entirely on the
level of simplistic guidelines. Although recipes
may help, what the student needs to learn about
sending and receiving messages and relating to
others
is an understanding of what happens dur1.
become
always present and
behavior. Each theory looks at the process
understanding of systematic
is an important step
theories of communication
individual. Often
is
the best theory of
not particularly useful inasmuch
as communication is not a single, unified act but
is
Analysis,” in Communication Yearbook 5, ed. Michael
Burgoon (New Brunswick,
(Cambridge: At the
1982), pp. 1-28.
p. 30.
4
N.J.: Transaction Books,
THE NATURE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
As Dean Barnlund
disciplines.
make traditional themes
support rather than dominate the study of
communication. The field of communication is
characterized not only by its focus on communication per se but also by its interest in the
entire breadth of communication concerns. The
work of the International Communication As-
indicates:
the scholarly coin to
“While many disciplines have undoubtedly
benefited from adopting a communication
model, it is equally true that they, in turn, have
added greatly to our understanding of human
interaction .” 4
you they
Remember
that
when
people
tell
communication experts, they are
Their primary interests may be in
the sciences or the arts, mathematics or literasaying
are
little.
biology or politics
ture,
5
Although scholars from a number of disciplines share an interest in communication, the
scholar’s first loyalty
is
tion
is
Communica-
itself.
generally considered subordinate. For
example, psychologists study individual behavior and view communication as a particular
kind of behavior. Sociologists focus on society
and social process, seeing communication as
one of several social factors. Anthropologists
are interested primarily in culture,
investigate
communication they
aspect of a broader theme.
from
this that
and
communication
is
if
they
an eclectic approach. This situation is changing,
however, and in a few years we will see more
less significant
direct theorizing about communication. In discussions of theories in this book, the relevance
6.
of each theory to the broader study of human
communication is explained.
an academic study than behavior, society,
and culture? Of course we do not.
In recent years scholars
sized
it
have recognized the
of communication and have emphaand theory. Some of
in their research
these scholars
plines.
were trained
Defining Communication
Because of its complex, multidisciplinary na-
in traditional disci-
Others learned in academic departments
communication or speech communication. Regardless of their original academic
homes, these scholars have come together in the
new field of communication. They have flipped
called
4.
ture,
word
(New
Interpersonal Communication: Survey and
York: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), p. v.
George Gordon, The Languages of Communication (New
York: Hastings House, 1969), p. ix; Franklin Knower, “The
Development of a Sound Communicology” (unpublished
manuscript); C. David Mortensen, Communication: The
Study of Human Interaction (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1972), p. 22; Kenneth Sereno and C. David Mortensen, “A
Framework
for
Communication Theory,”
(New
York: Harper
Row,
difficult to define.
abstract and,
The
like
all
The term communica-
For discussions of the multiple meanings of the term
communication, see as example
sen,
Human
Interaction ;
Gordon,
Thomas
Languages-,
Morten-
“On
Defining
R. Nilsen,
Communication,” Speech Teacher 6
(1957): 10-17.
One hun-
dred twenty-six different definitions of communication can
be found in Frank E. X. Dance and Carl E. Larson, The
Functions of Human Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart
Winston, 1976), Appendix A.
in Foundations of
&
is
concepts behind the term.
The
Communication Theory
is
communication
.
multidisciplinary nature of the study of communication is emphasized in numerous sources, including
5.
communication
words, possesses multiple meanings 6 Scholars
have made many attempts to define communication, but seeking a single working definition
may not be as fruitful as probing the various
Dean Barnlund,
Studies
in this
it as an
conclude
treat
Do we
as
centrality
Communication
happening
is
Although many theories relate to aspects of
communication, only a few deal with communication itself. Most of our understanding of
communication arises from theories produced
in the traditional disciplines. This book includes
theories that relate directly to communication
as a process and those that contribute to our
understanding of communication less directly.
The field of communication is so young that it
has not produced much theory, so our knowledge of communication still relies primarily on
usually to the general
concepts of the discipline
sociation and the Speech
Association typifies what
field.
.
&
1970).
5
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
can be used legitimately in a number of
ways. Frank Dance takes a major step toward
fifteen distinct
concept. He discovered
conceptual components in the
1.1 summarizes the
components and provides an example for each.
In addition Dance found three points of “critical conceptual differentiation,” which form the
basic dimensions along which the various
various definitions. Table
process.
The
The second dimension
nitions include only intentional
is
signed to capture the general nature or essence
of communication. The second type includes
those that deal with certain
thematic theories,
communicaThe third
pervasive themes present in most
the inclu-
Some
of communication, theories de-
general theories
The first is level of observation
Definitions vary in level of abstractness. Some
definitions are broad and inclusive; others are
sion or exclusion of intentionality
book are divided into
The first type includes
theories in this
three types of domains.
definitions differ.
restrictive.
systematically
from one aspect of communication to another.
After all, the goal of this book is not merely
to summarize a number of theories but to build
an understanding of communication in the
7
muddy
clarifying this
moving
the different theories,
tion
tion events regardless
defi-
message send-
type consists
of
of the
setting.
theories that
context theories,
particular setting
of
ing and receiving; others preclude intention.
Third is the factor of normative judgment. Some
apply specifically to
of evaluation;
other definitions do not contain such implicit
judgments of quality.
Dance’s conclusion is important: “We are trying to make the concept of ‘communication’ do
General theories appear in Part II of this
book. Three classes of general theories are
too
much work
concepts.
The
for us.” 8
He
calls for a family
covered: system theory, symbolic interactionism, and rules theory. System theory captures
the holistic, relational nature of the
tion process, emphasizing
of
ments
theories included in the following
interrelate
ways
communicawhich ele-
in
to establish an indivisible
whole. Symbolic interactionism stresses the
ways in which humans define themselves,
chapters, seen collectively, represent a step in
the direction of specifying the
a
communication
definitions include a statement
members of this
others,
family of concepts.
and situations by exchanging messages.
Rules theory deals with socially derived guidelines for
An Organizing Framework
Communication
number of ways.
Part
cial,
We could,
meaning, information, and persuasion. Language includes verbal and nonverbal signs.
for example, divide
would probably not be
bols.
domain.
theory’s
Mass
communication
Organizational
domain is its topic or subject, or
communication covered by the
theory. This method of organizing theories is
advantageous because it allows us to employ
elements of communication as guides for using
communication
Small group
communication
Dyadic
communication
Frank E. X. Dance, “The ‘Concept’ of Communica20 (1970): 201—10; also Dance
tion,” Journal of Communication
and Larson, Functions.
8.
Dance, “Concept,”
Figure
p. 210.
6
to
sym-
Information consists of how messages are
book
the aspect of
7.
all
Meaning involves the human response
benefi-
as discussed earlier. Instead, in this
theories are organized according to
A
contexts: language,
munication that apply to
theories according to the disciplines in which
they were developed. However, such an or-
ganizing pattern
communication behavior.
presents four broad themes of com-
III
theories can be classified in a
1.1.
Hierarchy of contexts.
THE NATURE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
TABLE
1.1
Conceptual components
1.
Symbols/Verbal/Speech
2.
Understanding
3.
Interaction/Relationship/
“Interaction, even
Social Process
tion;
communication
in
“Communication
the verbal interchange of thought or idea” (Ho-
is
ben, 1954).
“Communication
by which we understand others and in
turn endeavor to be understood by them. It is dynamic, constantly
changing and shifting in response to the total situation” (Anderson,
is
the process
1959).
otherwise
on the
is a kind of communicacould not occur” (Mead, reprinted
biological level,
common
acts
1963).
4.
Reduction of Uncertainty
5.
Process
“Communication
effectively, to
arises out of the need to reduce uncertainty, to act
defend or strengthen the ego” (Bamlund, 1964).
“Communication: the transmission of information, idea, emotion,
skills, etc., by the use of symbols
words, pictures, figures, graphs,
etc. It is the act or process of transmission that is usually called
communication” (Berelson and Steiner, 1964).
—
6.
Transfer/Transmission/
Interchange
“The connecting thread appears
to be the idea of something’s being
from one thing, or person, to another. We use the word
‘communication’ sometimes to refer to what is so transferred, sometimes to the means by which it is transferred, sometimes to the whole
process. In many cases, what is transferred in this way continues to be
shared; if I convey information to another person, it does not leave my
own possession through coming into his. Accordingly, the word
‘communication’ acquires also the sense of participation. It is in this
sense, for example, that religious worshipers are said to communi-
transferred
cate” (Ayer, 1955).
7.
Linking/Binding
“Communication
living
8.
Commonality
9.
Channel/Carrier/Means/
is
the process that links discontinuous parts of the
world to one another” (Ruesch, 1957).
is a process that makes common to two or
what was the monopoly of one or some” (Gode, 1959).
“The means of sending military messages, orders, etc., as by tele-
“It
(communication)
several
Route
phone, telegraph, radio, couriers” ( American College Dictionary).
Memories
10.
Replicating
11.
Discriminative Response/
“Communication
is the process of conducting the attention of another
person for the purpose of replicating memories” (Cartier and Har-
wood,
Behavior Modifying Response
12.
Stimuli
1953).
“Communication is the discriminatory response of an organism to a
stimulus” (Stevens, 1950).
“Every communication
act
is
viewed
as a transmission
consisting of a discriminative stimuli,
(Newcomb,
from
of information,
a source to a recipient”
reprinted 1966).
13.
Intentional
14.
Time/Situation
“The communication process
15.
Power
“Communication
“In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver^) with conscious intent
to affect the latter’s
behaviors” (Miller, 1966).
is one of transition from one structured
situation-as-a-whole to another, in preferred design” (Sondel, 1956).
(Schacter, 1951).
7
is
the
mechanism by which power
is
exerted”
,
INTRODUCTION
used to reduce uncertainty and to make predictions and decisions. Persuasion encompasses the
communication within the
ways
two
in
which individuals change
in
addition
trans-
actions with others.
aim
cation
group, organizational, and mass communica-
mass
conducted through
is
mediated; that
is,
an intervening channel. Communication conare conceived of as
a
hierarchy.
Each
higher level includes important aspects of lower
levels
within
it.
Mass communication,
for
scholars
would add
context to this analysis: intrapersonal
a
or
Contextual theories
Language
Meaning
Thematic theories
Information
Persuasion
Figure 1.2.
it
cuts across
all
this
other
all the themes operate.
Thematic theories cover topics relevant to the
rows, and context theories cover topics relevant to the columns. General theories attempt
to capture the general nature of the process,
cutting across both columns and rows.
the hierarchy of contexts.
Many communication
Certainly, this
Second, intrapersonal communi-
so pervasive that
contexts in which
example, necessarily involves organizational
communication, group communication, and
dyadic communication. Figure 1.1 illustrates
fifth
self.
not included here for
meaning, information, and persuasion. Part III
of the book itself might be considered a summary of intrapersonal communication theories.
To further visualize the contextual model of
domain, consider the two dimensions of domain illustrated in Figure 1.2. The vertical dimension consists of themes that cut across contexts, and the horizontal dimension includes
Dyadic, group, and organizational con-
texts are basically interpersonal, while the
texts
it is
few theories address
contexts,
contextual domains are included: dyadic,
context
is
First,
making it a universal theme. Communication theories most relevant to intrapersonal communication deal with language,
of commu-
to explain aspects
nication appearing in particular settings. Four
tion.
valid, but
level directly.
Part IV deals with contextual theories,
theories that
is
reasons.
Theoretical domains.
8
CHAPTER
Theory
2
of human communication,
I n the study
branches of knowledge,
it is
in the Process
of Inquiry
to inquiry that involves three stages
as in all
How
did
we
we
begin
is
this
book because each of the chapters
role in
its
generation. First
we
.
them .” 2 These
common types of questions
asked by the scholar. Questions of definition call
for concepts as answers, seeking to identify
what
is
shall
we
observed or inferred (What is it? What
call it?). Questions of fact ask about
what is observed
(What does it consist of? How does it relate to
other phenomena?). Questions of value probe
properties and relations in
will discuss in-
will take a closer
.
.
authors outline
quiry as a general process, including the nature
we
.
plined, systematic answers to
at truth.
This chapter discusses the pro .ess of developing knowledge. Knowledge does not just
spring into being. Rather, it is the product of
hard work, with scholarship taking a central
of scholarship. Then
.
.
presents a kind of truth. Every theorist repre-
sented here has taken a stab
first
inquiry is “nothing more
than the process of asking interesting, significant questions
and providing disci-
fact, believe that
particularly important place to
a
The
tions.
come to profess what we know or think
know? The questions of truth, discovery, and
inquiry
1
.
and guiding stage of all inquiry is asking quesGerald Miller and Henry Nicholson, in
appropriate, even
compelling, to ask ourselves:
look
aesthetic, pragmatic,
theory as a part of inquiry. Later we will
examine central philosophical issues related to
communication theory, concluding with a discussion of the criteria for evaluating theories.
at
and ethical
qualities
of the
observed. Such questions result in value judg-
ments about phenomena
effective? Is
it
(Is it
beautiful? Is
it
proper?).
The second
stage of inquiry
is
observation.
Here the scholar experiences the object of
in-
Methods of observation vary signififrom one tradition to another. Some
scholars observe by examining records and artifacts, others by personal involvement, others
by using instruments and controlled experiment, others by taking testimony. Whatever
form is used, the investigator employs some
planned method for answering the questions.
The third stage of inquiry is constructing anquiry.
The Process of Inquiry in Communication
cantly
A Basic Model of Inquiry
Inquiry involves processes of systematic, disciplined ordering of experience that lead to the
development of understanding and knowledge.
Inquiry is what scholars do to “find out.” Inquiry is not just one process, of course. Many
modes are used, but all are distinguished from
mundane
cused;
and
it
or
common experience.
Inquiry
is
swers.
stage,
which
is
to define, to
make judgments. This
the focus of this book,
is
usually
referred to as theory.
never sure of the exact outcome of
inquiry and can anticipate only the general form
or nature of the results.
gator
Here the scholar attempts
describe and explain, to
fo-
involves a planned means or method
has an expected outcome. The investiit
is
These scholars
also share a general
1
The process of inquiry is described in Gerald E. Miller
and Henry Nicholson, Communication Inquiry (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976).
.
approach
2.
9
Ibid, p. ix.
INTRODUCTION
Students naturally tend to think of the stages
of inquiry as linear, occurring one step at a
time, but inquiry does not proceed in this fashion. Each stage affects and is affected by the
others. Observations often stimulate
tions,
new
new
questions, and observations are structured in
by existing
the interaction
sults.
Science
apart
many
in
gen-
ignoring the distinctions between
types of inquiry. These types stem
scientific. 3
arship share the
all
common
the
form and structure
between individual obin wait of discovery.
sits
is
is
why
objectivity or
so important in science. If
all
trained observers report the same results, we
can be assured that the phenomenon has been
accurately observed. Because of the emphasis
humanistic, and social
of these forms of schol-
have major
on discovering a knowable world, scientific
methods are especially well suited to problems
of nature.
associated
Humanistic Scholarship. While science is associated with objectivity, the humanities are
elements discussed
in the previous section, they also
The world
replicability
scientific,
Although
is
not always
consistent with the philosophical
differences
observers. This reliance
different
of scholarship:
is
Where the scholar has reason to believe that a
phenomenon exists in the world, the goal is to
observe that phenomenon as accurately as possible. Since no divinely revealed way exists for
knowing how accurate one’s observations are,
the scientist must rely on agreement among
methods of observation and lead
to different forms of theory. Methods of inquiry often are grouped into three broad forms
from
is
from
servers.
eral terms,
the
it
position that the world has
the stages of inquiry.
Types of Scholarship
The preceding section discusses inquiry
that such objectivity
achieved.
theories. Figure 2.1 illustrates
among
Remember
goal-ideal of science but that
ques-
and theories are challenged both by ob-
servations and questions. Theories lead to
part
Replications of a study will yield identical re-
differences.
Scientific Scholarship.
Science often
is
associated with subjectivity.
with objectivity. This association is valid or
not, depending on how you view objectivity. If
by objectivity you mean suspension of values,
then science definitely
ever, if
is
not objective.
standardize observation;
How-
reduce
by objectivity you mean standardiza-
the
is indeed objective; or, more
aims to be objective. The scientist
at the world in such a way that
all other observers, using the same methods,
will see the same thing in a given observation.
tion,
3.
An excellent, though somewhat different,
is
whit
is
to
observed,
is
to understand indi-
is
an “out there” activity,
humanities stress the “in here.” Science focuses
on the discovered world; humanities focus on
attempts to look
scholarship can be found in Ernest G.
differences in
While science
it
Research in the Communicative Arts
aim of science
vidual subjective response.
then science
accurately,
human
aim of the humanities
Science aims to
the humanities seek
creative individuality. If the
Questions
discussion of
Bormann, Theory and
(New York:
Holt,
& Winston, 1965). For more detailed discussions
of the forms of scholarship presented in Bormann, see
Rinehart
Nathan Glazer, “The Social Sciences in Liberal Education,”
The Philosophy of the Curriculum, ed. Sidney Hook (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1975), pp. 145-58; James L. Jarrett, The Humanities and Humanistic Education (Reading,
in
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973); Gerald Holton, “Science,
Science Teaching, and Rationality,” in The Philosophy of the
Curriculum, ed. Sidney Hook (Buffalo: Prometheus Books,
1975), pp. 101-18.
Theory
Observation
-»
Figure 2.1.
10
The
stages of inquiry.
THEORY
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
the discovering person. Science seeks consen-
havioral science and social science, the former
referring to individual behavior and the latter to
humanities seek alternative interpretations.
sus;
Humanists often are suspicious of the claim that
there is an immutable world to be discovered.
human
interaction. For our purposes these two
branches are combined.
The humanities scholar tends not to separate the
knower from the known. The classical humanistic
position
one
sees.
is
that
who one is
In order to understand
scholar
determines what
do
Because of its emphasis on the subjechumanistic scholarship is especially well suited to problems of art, personal
experience, and values.
This discussion is not intended to lead you to
on what is observed. Once
phenomena are accurately obmust be explained or interpreted.
Interpreting may be confounded by the fact that
the object of observation, the
itself
human
subject,
is
an active, knowing being. Unlike objects
world, the human subject is capa-
in the natural
mentwo
of having knowledge, of possessing values
and making interpretations. Can “scientific”
explanation of human behavior take place
without consideration of the “humanistic”
knowledge of the observed person? This question is the central philosophical issue of social
ble
groups of scholarship; points of cross-over also
exist between them. At times the scientist is a
humanist, using intuition, creativity, interpretaIronically, the scientist
as
must
served, they
tioned relate to the primary thrust of the
and insight.
must be
the behavioral
any program of research and theory building
some aspects of both scientific and
tion,
behavior, the
establish consensus
includes
differences
human
If behavioral patterns
havioral scientist, like the natural scientist,
believe that science and humanities are so far
apart that they never come together. Almost
The
it.
objective as possible. In other words, the be-
tive response,
humanistic scholarship.
must observe
in fact exist, then observation
must
be subjective in creating the mechanisms that
science.
will eventually lead to objective observation.
Controversy about the nature of inquiry into
human
Research design is a creative process. At times
the humanist, in turn, must be scientific, seek-
life is
common
in social science. In pre-
vious years the majority of social scientists believed that scientific methods alone would
ing facts that enable scholars to understand the
experiences to which ultimately they will re-
suffice to
spond subjectively. As we shall see in the next
section, where science leaves off and humanities
begin is not always clear.
rience.
while
of
uncover the mysteries of human expe-
Today most social scientists realize that
methods are an important aspect
scientific
their scholarship, a strong
humanistic ele-
ment
The Special Case of
form of scholarship
the Social Sciences.
is
social science.
A
is present as well. Specifically, the individual subjective response must be considered in understanding how people think and
third
Many
so-
would not separate this type of
from science, seeing it instead as an
extension of natural science. In fact, numerous
methods used by social scientists are borrowed
from physics. Social science, however, is a
world apart. Paradoxically, it includes elements
evaluate.
of both science and humanities, but
methods. The theories covered in this book, as
examples of social science, vary significantly in
their use of the languages of science and
cial scientists
The study of communication
scholarship
ent
it is
differ-
human
beings as objects of study. They seek to observe
and interpret patterns of human behavior. In
practice scholars distinguish
It
have
in creating,
is
a social sci-
how
people be-
exchanging, and interpreting
messages. Consequently, communication inquiry combines both scientific and humanistic
from both.
Social scholars attempt to understand
involves understanding
ence.
humanities. Traditionally in the field of speech
communication, humanistic theories of communication have been referred to as rhetorical
between be-
11
.
.
INTRODUCTION
theory
and
theory.
This distinction
ful.
scientific theories as communication
All of the theories
will discuss deal
human communication; both
between the concepts of model and
distinctions actually are miscon-
distinctions
theory. 5
not particularly use-
is
we
with
Most
ceptions, he believes.
humanistic and
and
explanation
a
He
defines a theory as an
model
as
a
representation
worthy of inclusion in
our body of knowledge about human commu-
For him, models merely represent aspects of
the phenomenon without explaining the inter-
nication.
relationships
scientific theories
are
of communication there is no
on the limits of science and
In the field
humanities.
We
are far
from consensus on
among
the parts of the
modeled
process.
universal agreement
In this
will not
pursue the dis-
between theories and models of com6
The purpose of the book is to
tinctions
the
book we
questions that can and should be approached
munication
and those that should be the focus
of humanistic methods. In the final analysis
scholars defend the traditions in which they are
trained and which they enjoy the most. These
issues of scholarship are taken up in more detail
later in the chapter under the heading of
represent a wide range of thought about the
scientifically
theory
used in
is
nication process.
may
As you
the term range
when
phers
the term
4.
Theory
is
is
of
as
is
contrasted with
writers,
in the process
from model
thus encounter models of the
conceived
is
of communication.
made about
generalizations can be
First, all theories are abstractions.
cess being conceptualized.
theory
In
is
partial;
process
human
at
a
Theories
result every
on
certain aspects of the
the expense of other aspects. This
truism about theory
and planes. On the conceptual
models that represent ideas and processes. Such models may be graphic, verbal, or
mathematical. In any case a model is usually
viewed as an analogy to some real-world
phenomenon. Thus models are interpreted
metaphorically so that the model builder attempts to draw symbolic parallels between
structures and relationships in the model and
those in the modeled event or process 4
Leonard Hawes reviews several common
As
every theory leaves something
out. Theories focus
figure, trains,
is
important because
it
re-
5. Leonard Hawes, Pragmatics of Analoguing: Theory and
Model Construction in Communication (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 122-23.
level are
6. For definitions of the terms theory and model, see Dean
C. Barnlund, Interpersonal Communication: Survey and
(New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1 968) p. 18; Bormann, Communicative Arts, p. 96; Karl W. Deutsch, “On
Studies
,
Communication Models
in
the Social
Sciences,” Public
Opinion Quarterly 16 (1952): 357; Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindzey, Theories of Personality (New York: Wiley,
1970), pp. 9—10; Gerald R. Miller, Speech Communication: A
Behavioral Approach (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), pp.
52—53; C. David Mortensen, Communication: The Study of
Human Interaction (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 29;
Frank E. X. Dance and Carl E. Larson, The Functions of
Human Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1976), p. 3; Hawes, Pragmatics, pp. 28-29.
.
Max
many
are attempts of
of communication are not themselves the pro-
used differently.
often distinguished
all
theories.
fact.
and philoso-
broad sense the term model can apply to any
symbolic representation of a thing, process, or
We
exist.
will see in the following pages,
important
Two
a
idea.
commu-
not to distinguish
various scholars to represent what
his pullets
People sometimes use the term theory
to mean any unsubstantiated guess about somerelativity.
scientists,
is
most general form, however,
from
will start laying eggs to Einstein’s theory
Too, theory often
broadest sense as any conintent
conceptual representations are available. In their
farmer Jones’s theory about
Even among
The
between those representations called models
and those called theories, though technical differences
thing.
its
ceptual representation or explanation of the
philosophical issues.
The Nature of Theory
What is theory? Uses of
.
communication process. Therefore the term
Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1962), chap. 13.
12
.
THEORY
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
veals the basic inadequacy of theory. No single
theory will ever reveal Truth. The creator of a
theory attempts to point out and explain what is
but that any given “truth” can be represented in a variety of ways, depending on the
reality,
theorist’s orientation.
believed to be important, nothing more. 7
The Functions of Theory
must be viewed as constructions. Theories are created by people, not
ordained by God. Theories represent various
ways in which observers see their environSecond,
all
theories
ments, but theories themselves are not
Many
Eight important and overlapping functions of
theory can be identified: (1) the organizing and
summarizing function,
reality.
.
A
theory must
somehow
an important sense
its
own.” 8
.
jreyr.istic
tion,
.
Let us take an analogy from biology. Two
observers using microscopes may see different
points of view.
retical
One
on
their theo-
observer sees
Knowledge is organized into a
body of theories, and the investigator begins a
study with the organized knowledge of genera-
The first viewer stresses the
of an amoeba that resemble prop-
cells.
properties
erties
of
all
other
cells
— the
tions of previous scholars.
The second function is that of focusing.
Theories, in addition to organizing data, focus
wall, the nucleus,
The second observer concenanalogy between the amoeba and
the cytoplasm.
trates
on the
first
investigation.
a
one-celled animal; the other sees an organism
without
function, (7) the communicative func11
(8) the control function.
function of theory is to organize
and summarize knowledge. We do not see the
world in bits of data. Humans need to organize
and synthesize the world. Patterns must be
sought and connections discovered. Theories
and models are one way of accomplishing this
organization of knowledge. An added benefit of
this function is theory’s contribution to cumulation in knowledge. The student, practitioner, or
scientist does not have to start anew with each
creates
things in an amoeba, depending
and
The
God’s world, but
a world of
fit
it
the focus function,
function,
and students often are trapped by the conception that reality can be seen in this or that
theory. Abraham Kaplan writes: “The formation of a theory is not just the discovery of a
hidden fact; the theory is a way of looking at the
facts, of organizing and representing them.
in
(2)
the clarifying function, (4) the observational
(5) the predictive function, (6) the
(3)
readers and theorists forget this principle,
attention
on important
variables
and
relation-
other whole animals. This observer sees ingestion of food, excretion, reproduction, mobility.
ships, as a
Neither observer
communities, picnic grounds, and shopping
centers. To the persistent question of “What
will I look at?” the theory points out areas for
is
wrong. Their
surface a
theoretical
frameworks simply
stress different aspects of
observed object. 9 Because of the fact that
theories and models are constructions, ques-
the
10.
tioning a theory’s usefulness
tioning
truthfulness 10
its
.
is
investigation.
wiser than ques-
This statement
is
map depicts terrain. From the overall
map points out recreation spots,
Third, theories provide the advantage of
clarifying what is observed. The clarification
not only helps the observer to understand rela-
not
intended to imply that theories do not represent
tionships in
7.
For discussions of the partial nature of theories, see
p. 52; Lee Thayer, “On Theory-Building in
Miller, Speech
interpreting, explaining,
8.
Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct
Chandler, 1964),
to interpret
provide guideposts for
and understanding the
complexity of human relations.
Communication 13 (1963): 217-35.
cisco:
communication but
specific events. Theories
,
Communication: Some Conceptual Problems,” Journal of
Fourth, theories offer an observational aid.
of Inquiry (San Fran-
p. 309.
This listing is a synthesis of functions gathered from a
of sources. See Bamlund, Interpersonal Communicap. 18; Irwin B. J. Bross, Design for Decision (New
York: Macmillan, 1953).
1 1
9. Examples from N. R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery
(Cambridge: At the University Press, 1961), pp. 4-5.
variety
tion,
See Hall and Lindzey, Theories pp. 10—11.
,
13
INTRODUCTION
communicative function. Most investigators
want and need to publish their observations and
Closely related to the focus function, the observational function points out not only
how
observe but
to observe.
what
to
speculations for other interested persons.
Especially for
Theory provides
those theories that provide operational definitions, the theorist gives the
a
framework
nication and provides an open
most precise indicameant by a particu-
commu-
for this
forum
for discus-
and criticism. Through the communication of numerous explanations of the
phenomena we study, comparison and theory
what is
lar concept. Thus by following directions the
reader is led to observe details elaborated by the
sion, debate,
theory.
improvement become possible.
The eighth function of theories is control.
This function grows out of value questions, in
which the theorist seeks to judge the effectiveness and propriety of certain behavior. Such
tion possible about
The
function of theories, to predict,
fifth
is
one of the most widely discussed areas of sciento
Many
inquiry.
tific
make
theories allow the inquirer
predictions about outcomes and effects
This
in the data.
in the applied
ability to predict is
communication
theory
important
areas such as per-
often referred to as normative in that
is
,
seeks to establish
it
norms of performance. Much
suasion and attitude change, psychotherapy,
theory, of course, does not seek to
fulfill this
small group dynamics, and organizational
communication. Teachers work toward devel-
function at
remaining on the
descriptive
all,
level.
and abilities to improve communication competence. Various communication
oping
skills
Theory Development and Change
Although
it is
to substitute well-founded predictions for
theory
an abstraction from
guesses.
the functional relationship
theories aid this process
The
sixth theoretical function, the heuristic
function,
iar
by enabling the student
good
is
axiom
also frequently discussed.
is
that a
A
also necessary.
entity with
famil-
good theory generates
ence.
re-
search. The speculation forwarded in theories
of communication often provides a guide as to
the direction the research will take and thus aids
in furthering the investigation. This heuristic
function of aiding discovery is vital to the
growth of knowledge and is in a sense an outgrowth of each of the other functions of theory.
Seventh, theories serve an indispensable
From
Design for Decision by Irwin Bross. Copyright
is
important to understand that the
Theory
little
is
is
purely abstract
a
relationship to actual experi-
In fact, theory and experience interact
continually for the ultimate
both.
reality, realizing
between the two
not
improvement of
Irwin Brass’s excellent model of this
theory-experience relationship
is
shown
in
Figure 2.2. 12
From
search),
12.
original experiences
we
Figure 2.2.
14
formulate our symbolic models.
We
Bross, Design, pp. 161—77.
© 1953 by the Free Press,
the publisher.
(including re-
a
corporation. Reprinted with permission of
THEORY IN THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
are able to think
through and manipulate vari-
lutions, describes the third process
of change,
Over time researchers in an area of
study increase their knowledge through exten-
ables in our heads, while at the same time focusing on specified parameters in the real world.
From the interaction of these two, predictions
revolution. 15
sion and intension. At some point an extraordinary case is discovered that runs counter to
made, tested, and verified. Over time the
models change, grow, and improve, as illusare
more extended diagram shown
trated in Bross’s
prevailing assumptions of the theory in use.
At
this point a crisis develops, leading to the
de-
Figure 2.3. Thus good theory development is
a constant process of testing, formulating, and
velopment of
retesting.
ing
This testing-retesting process stresses the
need for research, which is vital to theory de-
original theory.
velopment
of the
in
in three interconnected
search allows for
(1)
new
of
ical
new
facts that are singled out as important,
(2) testing the theory’s predictive usefulness on real
events, and (3) further developing and articulat-
in
bit.
This
is
new
scientific
Kaplan, Conduct
From
,
by Irwin Bross. Copyright
revo-
©
who
when
a
approach is being formulated,
support the old approach become
of work that
may
many
be
years or entire
at stake.
scientific revolution described
by Kuhn
The
the exterior of the box from
above later sees its interior from below.” 16
Theory in any field, including communication,
is crucial for the formal investigation of
phenomena. Kaplan states this idea: “What is
p. 305.
Design for Decision
the publisher.
more and more members
becomes the primary theoret-
man who saw
13. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 25-27.
14.
it
fore the revolution are rabbits afterwards.
ing of concepts or single bits of knowledge. 14
monograph on
accepted by
knowledge. Previous areas of study may die;
others may be born; new weddings may occur.
“What were ducks in the scientist’s world be-
,
a
that
often requires redefinition of an entire field of
On the other hand, the
second way, growth by intension is the process of
developing an increasingly precise understandin
way of lookcompetes with the
a different
way
theoretical
The
concepts to the old.
Kuhn,
is
field until
The
Gradually, the revolutionary
defensive, protecting their
three important
the process of adding
theoretical approach.
approach. Often during the years
lifetimes
may change
first is growth by extension. Here
knowledge is expanded piece by piece, moving
from an understanding of one bit of reality to an
adjoining
the world, a
theorists
ing the theory. 13
Theories
ways. The
new
theory represents
at
theory
ways. Re-
specific investigating
a
15.
Kuhn,
16.
Ibid., p. 111.
Structure.
1953 by the Free Press,
Figure 2.3.
15
a
corporation. Reprinted with permission of
INTRODUCTION
rooted in the particularity of fact comes to
or else it
flower in the generalization of theory
—
fails
viding only a
Our
concept-processing beings.
entire
sym-
— everything known — stems from
Kuhn
concept formation.
writes: “Neither sci-
nor laymen learn to see the world
both scientists
entists
piecemeal or item by item;
.
.
labels
terns.
The
fulness of
them according
goal of theory
its
is
known
scholars believe
concepts interrelate. These explanations
.
why
and laymen sort out whole areas together from
the flux of experience.” 18 Although the process
of conceptualizing is complex, basically it
consists of grouping things and events into
categories according to observed commonalities. The communication theorist observes
many variables in communication and classifies
and
many
that
in
world
the concepts interrelate
taxonomies are not theories.) Introductory
communication texts often include basic models that list the “parts” of the communication
process, including such concepts as source,
message, receiver, feedback, and so forth. The
best theories, however, go beyond concepts to
provide explanations, statements about how
Theories
The first and most basic aspect of a theory is its
set of concepts. We as persons are by nature
bolic
how
(Note that
as taxonomies.
Concepts
of concepts and definitions
list
without explaining
or affect one another. Such theories are
to seed.” 17
at
tell
us
variables are connected. Theories that stop
the concept level are primitive at best, since
the goal of theory building
understanding of how
a
is
to provide an
phenomenon
operates.
Explanation in Theories
The Principle of Necessity. A phenomenon is explained to the extent that regularities in the
to perceived pat-
relationships
to increase the use-
among
concepts are identified.
explanation designates
concepts. Kaplan describes the
ables that
process:
makes
some
force
among
outcomes
particular
An
vari-
necessary.
Explanations vary according to the type of
a particular subject-matter grows,
our conception of that subject-matter changes; as our
concepts become more fitting, we can learn more
and more. Like all existential dilemmas in science, of
which this is an instance, the paradox is resolved by a
process of approximation: the better our concepts,
the better the theory we can formulate with them,
and in turn, the better the concepts for the next
It is only through such succesimproved theory.
sions that the scientist can hope ultimately to achieve
As knowledge of
.
.
necessity believed to exist.
Causal necessity occurs in a causal relationship.
Here the theory
states that
an antecedent
event determines the behavior of
event:
A
is
subsequent
a
believed to cause B. This kind of
20.
explanation
involves if-then reasoning.
Sup-
.
pose, for example, that
why
success. 19
you wished
important part of conceptualizing is
We mark our concepts by symbols,
usually words. Hence, an integral part of any
theory is the set of terms that captures the
theory’s concepts. Concepts and definitions
cannot be separated. Together they tell us what
the theorist is looking at and what is considered
different
from what they
Kuhn,
19.
Kaplan, Conduct,
beliefs as quite
One
theory
caused by high
statements by others. (This theory
in detail in
Chapter
Based on
P.
is
discussed
8.)
Achinstein,
Laws and Explanation (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1971); see also Donald P.
Barnett Pearce, “Generality and Necessity in Three Types of Theory about Human Communication, with Special Attention to Rules Theory,” Human
Communication Research 3 (1977): 344-53.
Cushman and W.
18.
is
ego involvement. In other words, when an individual’s central ego beliefs are threatened, that
person will accept only a very small range of
theories stop at the concept level, pro-
Kaplan, Conduct, p. 119.
own
believe.
explains that this occurrence
important.
17.
to explain
people sometimes perceive statements that
actually are similar to their
An
labeling.
Some
There are three
types. 20
Structure, p. 28.
p. 53.
16
THEORY
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
The second type of explanation employs
practical necessity.
Because
teraction,
theories.
it
human
is
often used in
way
may
5.
to
6.
One’s choice is affected by a
from self, others, and situation. In causal necessity behavior is determined by previous conditions, with the person responding passively. In
practical necessity the person actively selects
courses of action to achieve some future state.
is
cal necessity.
difficult to
A
explained by
assumed:
A
you
series;
a
Chapter
theory
typology
neat,
is
differences. 21
it
trichotomy
causes
is
prevalent in the literature,
explanation.
Law
believed to rely primarily
theories are
embodying
They make
ify universal causal relations
when
which
from the behavior of another.
rules are
on
among
variables. 22
practical necessity,
more humanistic, claiming
is well summarized in Ernest Bormann, Communication Theory (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
both understood and accepted by the
Winston, 1980), chap.
22.
is
rely
21. This controversy
the relational
partners.
Power
on
the spirit of sci-
use of covering laws that spec-
are believed to be
3.
we will
it briefly. However, the next section, on
theory typology, covers a system that is superior for analyzing theory based on modes of
discuss
causal necessity,
when
has been criticized in recent
Because the laws-rules-system
Rules theories,
This condition exists
detail in
years for presenting a false picture of theoretical
the behavior of one person follows naturally
2.
more
on their primary method of explanation. Although such a
ence.
exists
presented in
Laws, Rules, and Systems. Traditionally in the
of communication, theories have been sep-
theoretical statements:
complementary relationship
is
9.)
arated into three types, depending
of internally consistent definitions and a set of
correlations or correspondences among events.
As an example consider the following series of
A
neces-
necessary relationship exists
field
B, or A leads to B. In logical necessity such is
not the case. Logical necessity relies on a series
1.
is
believe the other statements in the
logical,
tions. (This
theory using logical
is
above example each statement
sary if
cause of the logic of the whole system of defini-
of interlocked statements about a
phenomenon. One state of affairs is seen as a
logical consequence of the acceptance of other
statements. In the other two forms of explanatime
In the
is made to seem necessary not
because of an established consistent link between one event and another in time but be-
series
tion, a linear link in
complementary relationship the person
consistently behaves in a one-up fashion
This correlation
you would
necessity as a basis for explanation consists of
a
In a
statements. Further, this series of statements leads us to accept a positive correlation
between power, one-up behavior, and control.
form of explanation relies on logiThis form of explanation is more
understand.
behavior accepts control by the
among
because they wish to achieve identification
with an audience. (This theory is discussed in
Chapter 4.)
third
over the re-
has the power.
be using practical necessity if you explained that
people construct messages in particular ways
The
One-down
who
In causal explanation the subsequent event is
explained by the antecedent event. In practical
the subsequent event. For example,
asserts control
other in a relationship.
choose
meet goals.
variety of pressures
explanation the antecedent event
One-up behavior
lational rules.
social in-
communication
suggests that a person
It
to behave in a particular
4.
form of expla-
this
nation applies primarily to
the Study of
rules.
7.
For discussion of this approach, see Charles R. Berger,
“The Covering Law
the ability to control relational
Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for
Human Communication,”
Quarterly 25 (1977): 7-18.
17
Communication
INTRODUCTION
edly relies on logical necessity. This type of
as a composite of finely screened
The aim of such theory is to reduce
whole down to its knowable parts. Synthetic
theories are more abstract, focusing on general
patterns and interrelationships 25 Analytic and
believed to center on the logical rela-
synthetic theories can be further divided into
that people actively
choose and change
understood
rules.
Rules theorists are seen as doubting the viability
elements.
of covering laws in communication. 23 In be-
the
tween
lies
theory
tions
is
the systems approach
among
which purport-
,
elements of a holistic system. Such
theories stress the intercorrelation
different types,
among
depending on the method of
Although analytic theories
explanation used.
events. 24
tend to be causal and synthetic theories tend to
be practical, crossovers often occur,
A
Theory Typology.
utility
of
Differences
Doubt
has been cast on the
may
as
we
shall
see momentarily. Figure 2.4 outlines eight re-
laws-rules-systems trichotomy.
this
of theory, including two types
sulting types
not be as clear as suggested by
that are nonexplanatory.
advocates. Although the covering law ap-
its
proach clearly embodies a
scientific
epistemol-
Philosophical Issues in the Study of
ogy, the difference between systems and rules
appears to be
Communication
more a matter of generality or
method of explanation. Be-
abstractness than
sides, there are
nation even
Communication Metatheory
important differences in expla-
among
Metatheory,
theories that are classed as
systems or those classed
rules theorists disagree
as rules.
among
as the prefix meta- suggests,
is
a
body of speculation on the nature of inquiry
that goes beyond the specific content of given
theories. It addresses such questions as what
For example,
themselves as to
how much power
rules exert over people’s acand system theorists equivocate about
whether systems relations are causal, correla-
should be observed,
tions,
take place, and
how
observation should
what form theory should
take.
are not
Metatheoretical debates are a natural conse-
and systems. (In
fact, this book has chapters on both rules and
systems.) The problem lies in using these labels
together as a trichotomy to designate particular
forms of explanation.
Therefore, this book does not discuss theoretical differences in terms of laws, rules, and
systems. Rather, two dimensions are used:
differences in method of explanation and differences in generality. On the generality dimen-
quence of uncertainty over the status of knowledge in a field. In the last decade or so,
metatheory has dominated the communication
field. Communication scholars have come to
question the adequacy of their methods, pre-
tional,
or both. Keep in
mind
discarding the terms laws,
sion,
ic
two types of theory
theories
assume
that
that
we
rules,
cisely
is
best
25. This analysis adapted
Leslie
from Vernon E. Cronen and
K. Davis, “Alternative Approaches for the
Commu-
nication Theorist: Problems in the Laws-Rules-Systems
For a discussion of this approach, see Donald P.
Cushman, “The Rules Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for
the Study of Human Communication,” Communication
23.
Trichotomy,” Human Communication Research 4
(1978):
120-28.
Quarterly 25 (1977): 30-45.
For another discussion of metatheory, see John Waite
Bowers and James J. Bradac, “Issues in Communication
Theory: A Metatheoretical Analysis,” in Communication
Yearbook 5, ed. Michael Burgoon (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Books, 1982), pp. 1—28.
26.
For a discussion of this approach, see Peter R. Monge,
“The Systems Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the
Study of Human Communication,” Communication Quar-
24.
terly
earlier in this chapter. 26
as a discipline deals with problems of knowledge and reality. Philosophy
questions the basic assumptions and methods of
proof used in generating knowledge in all walks
Philosophy
are presented. Analyt-
any phenomenon
because of the problems of social science
summarized
25 (1977): 19-29.
18
THEORY
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
of life. Thus the kind of metatheoretical discussion that has occurred in communication in recent years constitutes an important philosophical analysis of communication research and
theory. This philosophical examination is
somewhat complex, yet it can be grouped into
three major themes: epistemology, ontology,
and perspective. These areas are discussed
below.
Because of the diversity of disciplines involved in the study of communication and the
of thought about research
and theory, epistemological issues are important in this field. Some of the most basic of
these issues can be expressed as questions 27
To what extent can knowledge exist before experesultant divergence
.
rience?
Many
theorists believe that
all
knowl-
arises from experience. We observe the
world and thereby come to know about it. Yet
edge
Issues of Epistemology
27. This analysis
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that
studies knowledge. Epistemologists ask how
humans know what they claim to know. Epistemologists question observations and claims as
a way of understanding the nature of knowledge and the processes by which it is gained.
Any good discussion of inquiry and theory will
inevitably come back to epistemological issues.
from Stephen W.
Littlejohn, “Epistemol-
the Study of Human Communication” (Paper
delivered at the Speech Communication Association,
ogy and
New
York City, November 1980). See also Littlejohn, “An
Overview of Contributions to Human Communication
Theory from Other Disciplines,” in Human Communication
Theory: Comparative Essays ed. Frank E. X. Dance (New
York: Harper & Row, 1982), 247-49. For a somewhat
different approach, see W. Bennett Pearce, “Metatheoretical
Concerns in Communication,” Communication Quarterly 25
,
(1977): 3-6.
Generality dimension
Analytic theories
Type
Causal
explanation
Logical
explanation
Synthetic theories
Type 2
1
Theories low in level
of abstraction using
causal explanation
Theories high in level
of abstraction using
causal explanation
Type
Type
3
Theories low in level
4
logical explanation
Theories high in level
of abstraction using
logical explanation
Type
Type
of abstraction using
Explanation
dimension
Practical
explanation
Nonexplanatory
5
6
Theories low in level
of abstraction using
practical explanation
Theories high in level
of abstraction using
practical explanation
Type 7
Taxonomies low
Type 8
Taxonomies high
in level
of abstraction
Figure 2.4.
Types of theory.
19
of abstraction
in level
INTRODUCTION
there something in our basic nature that provides a kind of knowledge even before we experience the world? Many philosophers believe
is
so.
This kind of “knowledge” would consist of
inherent mechanisms of thinking and perceiv-
For example, strong evidence exists that
do not learn language entirely from
Rather, they may acquire
it spoken.
ing.
children
hearing
what
idea more in
language by using innate models to
they hear.
(We
will discuss this
Chapter 5.)
To what extent
is
test
knowledge universal?
Is
knowledge certain, there for the taking by
whoever is able to ascertain it? Or is knowledge
relative and changing? The debate over this
issue has persisted for hundreds of years.
Communication theorists vary in terms of assumptions about the certainty of truth. Those
take a universal stance will admit to errors
in their theories, but they believe that these
and operate
as a
system. Analysts, on the other
hand, believe that knowledge consists of understanding how parts operate separately.
To what extent is knowledge explicit? Many
philosophers and scholars believe that you cannot know something unless you can state it.
Knowledge
claim that
is
thus seen as explicit. Others
is hidden, that
much of knowledge
people operate on the basis of sensibilities that
are not conscious and that they may not even be
able to express. Such knowledge is said to be
tacit.
28
The way
in
which scholars conduct inquiry
and construct theories depends largely on their
epistemological assumptions. Many basic positions arise from the issues just described. These
fine distinctions can be
made among
errors are merely a result of not yet having
broad opposing world views that
29
ing about communication.
discovered the complete truth. Relativists
would have us believe that knowledge will
never be certain because there is no universal
cist
World View
can be comprehended.
and
tinct
these posi-
but our discussion groups them into two
tions,
reality that
Numerous
positions can be called world views.
who
I.
This tradition
rationalist ideas.
It
is
affect think-
based on empiri-
treats reality as dis-
from the human being, something
that
assumes
process does knowledge arise? This
extremely complex, and the debate
on the issue lies at the heart of epistemology.
people discover outside themselves.
There are at least three positions on the issue.
Mentalism or rationalism suggests that knowledge arises out of the sheer power of the human
mind. This position places ultimate faith in
Discovery is important in this position; the
world is waiting for the scientist to find it. Since
By what
question
human
a physical,
is
reasoning. Empiricism states that
in
life.
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958).
28. See
knowl-
is supported in part by
Georg H. von Wright, Explanation and Understanding
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971) and Joseph Houna,
29. This particular two-fold analysis
“Two
they experience. Constructivists believe that
phenomena in the world can be fruitfully con-
many
different
being what the person has
Is
knowledge
knowledge
general, indivisible understandings.
lieve that
phenomena
Scientific Theorizing,” in
Communication
Burgoon (New Brunswick,
N.J.:
1978); Kenneth Williams, “Reflections on a Human
Science of Communication,” Journal of Communication 23
(1973): 239-50; Barry Brummett, “Some Implications of
or ‘Intersubjectivity’: Postmodern Rhetoric,”
Philosophy and Rhetoric 9 (1976): 21—51; Gerald Miller,
wholes?
consists
of
lan,
ways, knowledge
made of the world.
best conceived in parts or
Gestaltists teach that true
Ideals
Yearbook 5, ed. Michael
Transaction Books, 1982), pp. 29-48. Many other schemes
have been devised to classify epistemological approaches.
See for example Stephen Pepper, World Hypotheses (Berkeley: University of California Pres?, 1942); B. Aubrey Fisher,
Perspectives on Human Communication (New York: Macmil-
in order to function pragmatically
People project themselves into what
ceptualized
It
reality that is self-evident
to the trained observer.
edge arises in perception. We experience the
world and literally “see” what is going on.
Constructivism believes that people create
knowledge
knowable
‘Process’
of
The Current
They be-
Status of
Theory and Research
personal Communication,”
are highly interrelated
4
20
(1978): 175.
in
Human Communication
Inter-
Research
THEORY
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
knowledge is viewed as something acquired
from outside oneself, World View I is often
called the received view. Objectivity is all impor-
this
reason perceptual and interpretive processes
of the individuals
are important objects for
study.
with investigators being required to define
the exact operations to be used in observing
events. Most mainstream physical science is
versal laws but to describe the rich context in
World View
that
World View
tant,
I,
and
science follow suit.
hypothesizing
a
It is
humanistic in
stresses the individual subjective re-
Knowing
is
interpreting,
an activity
is believed to engage in. Many
communication take a World View
II stance, being based on the assumption that
communication itself is a vital vehicle in the
social construction of reality. 30
In sum, the following qualities characterize
the communication theory and research of
World View II. First, interpretation is stressed,
of affairs and carefully
through observation.
everybody
theories of
Further hypotheses are then deduced. Bit by bit
theory
is developed and knowledge grows.
World View 1 aims to make lawful statements about phenomena, developing generalizations that hold true across situations and over
phenomena appear and how they work.
it
sponse.
testing the hypothesis
time. Scholars in this tradition try to reveal
attempts not to uncover uni-
which individuals operate.
much behavioral and social
The method used involves
state
II
how
In so
rather than objective observation. Second, tacit
highly analytical, attempt-
ing to define each part and subpart of the object
processes as well as overt behavior are uncovered. Third, research and theory in this tra-
of interest.
dition emphasize social
doing the scholar
is
What, then, characterizes communication
theory and research in World
View
knowledge via symknowledge is
bolic interaction. In other words,
First,
seen as arising from the use of symbols in
such research tends to use behavioristic
methods cultured in psychology. Researchers
communication with other people. Further, this
research and theory tends to be humanistic,
follow
stressing individual
strict
I?
operations so that actual behavior
can be observed. Second, World View I
munication theory seeks covering laws.
comIt
view attempts
tempts to come up with universal statements
about communication. Third, communication
down
kind of theory and research
seek causal, mechanistic explanations of com-
munication events.
Fifth,
human
this
research and
being
as a reactive
object.
World View
II.
This tradition takes
a different
turn by relying heavily on constructivism,
viewing the world in process. In this view
people take an active role in creating knowledge. A world of things exists outside the per-
this
See for example Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann,
The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966); Alfred Schutz, The Phenomenology of the
trans. George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert
(Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1967).
30.
Social World
son, but the individual can conceptualize these
Knowledge
from
between knower and known. For
things in a variety of useful ways.
,
For a discussion of ontology, see Alasdair MacIntyre,
“Ontology,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Paul
Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), vol. 5, pp. 542-43.
31.
therefore arises not out of discovery but
interaction
Finally,
While epistemology is the study of knowledge,
ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals
with the nature of being, or more narrowly, the
nature of the phenomena we seek to know. 31
Actually, epistemology and ontology go hand
in hand, since our conception of knowledge
depends in part on our notions about the nature
of the knowable. In the social sciences ontology
deals largely with the nature of human existence. Thus ontological issues in the study of
the process into small
pieces. Fourth, this
theory images the
differences.
capture communication as
Issues of Ontology
research and theory in this tradition tend to be
analytic, breaking
to
process.
at-
,
21
INTRODUCTION
communication
deal with the nature
of human
people create meanings and use these meanings
to interpret
social interaction.
way
a theorist conceptualizes
depends
nicator
measure on
in large
Although numerous ontological positions
can be seen in communication theory, this book
groups them into two basic opposing positions:
actional and nonactional. Actional theory assumes that individuals create meanings, they
communication
how
the
commu-
viewed. All communication theories
is
begin with assumptions about being. Issues in
this
area reflect disagreements about the na-
ture of
human
important
Three
experience.
and understand situations in which
they find themselves.
Ontological issues are important because the
have intentions, they make
issues are
32
actional
.
view
rests
on
real choices.
a teleological base,
make
The
which
To what extent do humans make real choices?
Although all investigators probably would
says that people
agree that people perceive choice, there
a
tional tradition are reluctant to seek covering
long-standing philosophical debate on whether
laws because they assume that individual be-
real choice is possible.
On
are the determinists,
who
caused by
one
side
is
decisions that are de-
signed to achieve goals. Theorists of the ac-
havior
of the issue
is
not governed by universal prior
assume that people behave
events. Instead, they
state that people’s
multitude of prior con-
differently in different situations because rules
and that humans are basically reactive
and passive. On the other side of the debate are
behavior to meet future goals. This school
change from one situation to another.
Nonactional theory assumes that behavior basically is determined by and responsive to past
pressures. Covering laws are usually viewed as
sees people as decision-making, active beings
appropriate in this tradition; active interpreta-
behavior
is
a
ditions
who
the teleologists,
their
who
affect their
own
claim that people plan
destinies.
Middle posi-
tion
by the individual
is
downplayed.
tions also exist, suggesting either that people
make choices within a restricted range or that
some behavior is determined while other be-
Issues of Perspective
havior
coverage of theories of communication. In
other words, the perspective of a theory is its
Perspective involves the proper substantive
is a matter of free will.
To what extent is communication contextualized?
The question
whether behavior is governed
by universal principles or whether it depends on
situational factors.
that
human
by looking
angle or focus. Perspectives to a large extent are
is
life
at
Some
correlated with epistemology and ontology be-
philosophers believe
is
perspective
A perspective is a point of view, a way
of conceptualizing an area of study 33 Earlier in
.
chapter you learned that
this
abstractions and constructions.
humans
Any
a particular
from which the process can be
viewed.
ational factors.
are
knowledge and
theory of communication provides
richly contextual
To what extent
the theorist views
being affects the perspective of the theory.
universal factors; others believe
and cannot be
generalized beyond the immediate situation.
The middle ground on this issue is that behavior is affected by both general and situthat behavior
how
cause
and action are best understood
tion
interpreting beings?
of
a theory
all
theories are
The configura-
depends on the perspective of
This issue relates to problems of meaning.
Some theorists believe that humans behave in
the theorist. This perspective guides the theorist
accordance with stimulus-response principles,
out,
strictly reacting to pressures
in
from the environ-
ment. Others believe that people are thinking
interpreters.
theory, see
Bowers and Bradac,
how
to explain the process,
is
and
how
to
observed. Aubrey Fisher
states the idea: “Clearly, a
According to the second view,
32. For an ontological discussion
choosing what to focus on and what to leave
conceptualize what
concept that
is
trivial
or irrelevant or even ignored in one perspective
of communication
33.
For
a
discussion of perspective, see Fisher, Perspectives
pp. 57-85.
“Issues.”
22
,
THEORY
may suddenly
leap into importance
IN
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
when one
Theories of the transactional perspective stress
applies an alternative perspective .” 34 In fact, a
four labels best describe the major divisions of
words
communication is viewed as highly situational
and as a dynamic process that fulfills individual
and social functions. This perspective emphasizes holism, imagining communication to be a
process of sharing meaning. Transactional
theories tend to espouse World View II assump-
the field 35
tions,
fuller,
more complete
context, process, and function. In other
picture of the process can
be obtained by switching perspectives, which
is
one of the methods of this book. Although theoretical perspectives can be con-
certainly
number of ways,
ceptualized in a
the following
.
This perspective,
which comes from the behavioral school of
psychology, stresses stimulus and response.
and they use actional explanations
36
.
Behavioristic Perspective.
Communication
How to Evaluate a Communication Theory
As you encounter theories of communication,
you will need a basis for judging one against
another. Here is a list of some criteria that can
theories that use this perspec-
emphasize the ways that individuals
are affected by messages. Such theories tend to
conform to World View I assumptions, and
tive tend to
be applied to the evaluation of any theory
Remember
they are usually nonactional.
that
no theory
is
perfect;
Therefore the following
faulted.
all
37
.
can be
are
criteria
goal-ideals.
Transmissional Perspective. Transmissional
view communication as the transfer of
information from source to receiver. They use a
linear model of movement from one location to
Theoretical Scope
communication media, time, and sequential elements. Generally it is based on World View I and nonac-
principle
theories
A
is its comprehensiveness or
on the
of generality 38 This principle states
that a theory’s explanation must be sufficiently
general to cover a range of events beyond a
single observation. People continually provide
theory’s scope
inclusiveness. Theoretical scope relies
another. This perspective stresses
tional assumptions.
explanations for events, but their explanations
Interactional
This perspective rec-
Perspective.
are not
ognizes that communicators respond reciprocally to
is
one another. While the metaphor of the
a
not
always theoretical.
When
mere speculation about
an explanation
a single event,
a theoretical explanation.
it is
However, when
captures the interactional approach. Feedback
amexplanation goes beyond a single instance to
cover a range of events, it is theoretical. Nor-
and mutual
mally, the
transmissional perspective is^the line, the circle
effects are
key concepts. Such
more
Two types
general a theory, the better
it is.
World View II; they may
be actional or nonactional, depending on the
coverage of a broad domain. Theories that meet
degree to which communicators are thought to
the test of generality in this
be active choice makers.
phenomena.
theories typically are
Transactional Perspective.
es
sharing.
It
sees
thing in which
all
as
some-
way
The
first is
deal with
the
many
most thorough discussion of this perspec-
36. Perhaps the
participants actively engage.
tive
can be found in Mortensen, Communication.
discussed in greater depth in Bross, DeDeutsch, “On Communication Models,”
362-63; Hall and Lindzey, Theories, chap. 1; Kaplan, Conpp. 312-22; Kuhn, Structure, pp. 100-101, 152-56;
Mortensen, pp. 30-34.
37. Evaluation
is
sign pp. 161-77;
34. Ibid., 61.
35. Adapted from David M. Jabusch and Stephen Littlejohn, Elements of Speech Communication (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1981), pp. 12-24. Fisher’s ( Perspectives ) model is
somewhat
exist.
A communication theory that
meets this test would explain a variety of
communication-related behaviors. A theory
This perspective stress-
communication
of generality
duct,
38. Achinstein,
different.
23
Laws;
Cushman and
Pearce, “Generality.”
INTRODUCTION
need not cover a large number of phenomena to
be judged as good, however. Indeed, many fine
narrow
spawned much research and
has
further theoriz-
ing about group communication.
Such theories
possess the second type of generality. Although
they deal with a narrow range of events, their
explanations of these events apply to a large
number of situations. Such theories are said to
theories are
in coverage.
critics find his ideas useful as
develop
new
Even
Bales’s
springboards to
concepts.
Validity
Validity often implies truthfulness. In evaluat-
be powerful.
ing theories, however, validity
is better conceived of as consistency, since the truthfulness
of a theory may never be known. Two forms of
Consider two contrasting examples. The
theory of Kenneth Burke, (discussed in Chapter
as a theory that covers a broad range of
is a good example of the first type
of generality. Many aspects of communication
can be explained by the categories of Burke’s
4)
consistency can be evaluated in a theory. Inter-
phenomena,
nal consistency
theory. His categories, however, rely
of
is the degree to which the tenets
theory are consistent with the researcher’s
a
observations. External consistency
on under-
to
which the theory’s claims
is
the degree
are supported
by
standing specific aspects of particular situations.
other theories in the same domain. External
Although
theory follows the principle of
generality in terms of breadth of coverage, it
consistency also
does
attitudes, beliefs,
little
this
7,
covers very few
munication-related themes, but
its
internal
An
com-
As
such,
it
is
a
good example of
it
has
many
propositions,
a highly consistent web of claims. At
same time the theory receives much support
from other theories of cognition, attraction,
the
self-concept, and attitude.
the
Parsimony
The test of parsimony may be called logical
simplicity. If two theories are equally valid, the
second kind of generality.
Appropriateness
Is
and values is strong in both
and external validity (see Chapter 8).
intricate theory,
forming
propositions
measuring the capacities of communication
channels and the requirements of messages
apply in a large number of transmission situfor
ations.
be called concurrent or
consensual validity. Milton Rokeach’s theory of
to explain specific behavior across
situations. In contrast, information theory, as
explained in Chapter
may
the theory’s perspective appropriate for the
theory with the simplest logical explanation
theoretical questions the theory addresses? For
example, the behavioristic perspective is not
appropriate for questions related to meaning.
Some theories of meaning, which are indeed
behavioristic (see Chapter 6), can be faulted for
is
be the best. For example, although clasinformation theory can be faulted on other
grounds, it is highly parsimonious. A few core
said to
sical
assumptions and premises lead logically to a
variety of claims about channels, signals, messages, and transmission.
of appropriateness. Their epistemological
assumptions are inadequate for the domain they
lack
purport to cover.
What Do We Know about Communication
Heuristic Value
Does
Theory?
In summary, what can we
the theory have potential for generating
research and additional theory?
One of the
cation theory?
pri-
mary functions of theory is to help investigators
decide what to observe and how to observe it.
Theory
is
say about
communi-
an integral part of the
process of inquiry, which also includes asking
questions and making observations. These
three elements are strongly interconnected. In-
For example, a major contribution of Bales’s
interaction process theory (Chapter 11) is that it
quiry and theory vary depending on the type of
24
THEORY
scholarship with
which they
THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY
Human-
an object of study;
it
social science inquiry
methods
nication literature.
is
The
which
are appropriate for revealing
human behavior.
What is a theory? We know that a
constructed by a human observer. A
theory
is
theory
is
I
is
commubasically
ways in
which knowledge about communication can be
“received.” World View II is basically humanistic, emphasizing the ways in which individuals
create knowledge for personal and social use.
The two basic ontological positions in communication are the actional and nonactional. Ac-
chief problem of
the degree to
World View
scientific in orientation, stressing the
as
includes elements of both
science and humanities.
scientific
human being
general epis-
temological positions are apparent in
scholarship stresses subjectivity. Social sci-
ence attempts to understand the
Two
tology, and perspective.
are associated. Sci-
entific scholarship stresses objectivity.
istic
IN
tional theories stress
humans
as
choice-making
always abstract and always leaves something
out of its observations. Theories function to
beings; nonactional theories present people as
organize and summarize knowledge, to focus
parent in communication theory:
observation, to clarify what
havioristic perspective,
is
seen,
passive and reactive. Four perspectives are ap-
and to pro-
They also help to
predict, to generate research, to communicate
ideas, and to control. Theories are not immuta-
vide methods for observation.
ble:
stimulus and response;
perspective,
grow by
which
perspective,
mutual
intension, extension, and revolution.
Theories are based on concepts and explana-
(3)
sending and
the interactional
which includes feedback and
effect as central concepts;
transactional perspective,
Concepts are groups of observations
sharing common elements and a common
name. Explanations point out the relationships
among concepts, relying on causal, practical, or
logical necessity. Theories can be compared according to their levels of generality and
methods of explanation.
Philosophical issues in the study of communication are reflected in metatheory. Metatheory deals with issues of epistemology, on-
the be-
the transmissional
stresses linear
receiving of messages;
Because of research, theories change and
(1)
which focuses on
(2)
and
(4)
the
which centers on
shared meaning.
tions.
As you proceed through this book, keep in
mind the basic criteria for judging theories:
scope or generality, appropriateness or suitability,
heuristic value or research-generating abili-
ty,
validity or consistency,
and parsimony or
we begin
our survey of theories by examining system
theory and cybernetics.
logical simplicity. In the next chapter,
25
PART
n
GENERAL THEORIES
Chapter 3
General System Theory and Cybernetics
Chapter 4
Symbolic Interactionism and Rules Theory
.
CHAPTER
3
1 his book is organized around three broad
domains of communication theory: general
thematic theories, and contextual
theories,
theories. Part
II
covers three general theoretical
approaches that attempt to capture the communication process as a whole. This chapter deals
with system theory and the next chapter discusses symbolic interactionism and rules theory.
System “theory” is more a perspective or
general approach than a theory per se. It provides a way of looking at the world that can
help us better understand communication. 1 The
system approach is discussed in the domain of
general theory because it is especially useful in
capturing the general nature of the
tion process.
It is
communicadomains as
which is dis-
useful in narrower
well, such as information theory,
General
System Theory
and Cybernetics
One
of the most common distinctions is between closed and open systems. 2 A closed system
one that has no interchange with its environment. It moves toward progressive internal
is
chaos (entropy), disintegration, and death. The
closed-system model most often applies to
physical systems, which do not have lifesustaining qualities.
An
open system
receives matter and energy
ment and
from
is
its
passes matter and energy to
one
that
environits
envi-
ronment. The open system is oriented toward
life and growth. Biological, psychological, and
systems follow an open model. General
system theory deals with systems primarily
social
from
this
open perspective.
systems in this chapter,
with the open model.
we
When we
speak of
are concerned only
cussed as a theme of
its own in Chapter 7.
Nearly every chapter that follows includes
From the simplest perspective a system can
be said to consist of four things. 3 The first is
theories that use system concepts. Interperson-
objects. The objects are the parts, elements, or
members of the set. These objects may be phys-
al,
group, and organizational settings are espeserved by system theory.
cially well
ical or abstract or both, depending on the nature
of the system. Second, a system consists of
In this chapter we will take a brief look at the
system concept, with particular focus on general system theory and cybernetics. The latter
portion of the chapter outlines
qualities
attributes,
of communication. Other system-
oriented theories are presented in
or the qualities or properties of the
system and its objects. Third, a system must
possess internal relationships among its objects.
some system
This characteristic
is
a crucial defining quality
upcoming
chapters.
“The Systems Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the
Study of Human Communication,” Communication Quarterly
Fundamental System Concepts
2.
25 (1977): 19-29.
A. D. Hall and R. E. Fagen, “Definition of System,” in
Modem
Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist ed. Walter Buckley (Chicago: Aldine, 1968),
pp. 81-92; Anatol
Rapoport, “Foreword,” in Hall and Fagen, “Definition,”
pp. xiii— xxv. For an excellent short description of open
,
What
A
Is
a System?
system
of objects or entities that
interrelate with one another to form a whole.
is
a set
versus closed systems, see Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General
System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (New
York: Braziller, 1968).
1
For excellent discussions of general system theory
(GST) and other systems approaches, see Peter Monge,
3.
29
Hall and Fagen, “Definition.”
GENERAL THEORIES
of systems and a primary theme in this chapter.
A relationship between objects implies a mutual
4
This
effect (interdependence) and constraint
idea will be elaborated later. Fourth, systems
also possess an environment. They do not ex.
vacuum
in a
ist
but are affected
by
their sur-
roundings.
The advocates of general system theory
maintain that biological, psychological, and so-
systems possess certain common qualities.
fundamental ways these signposts define the
system concept. These qualities are not mutually exclusive; they obviously overlap and to a
cial
In
large degree help to define
one part of the system will produce changes
throughout the system.
The idea of interdependence is easily illus-
in
trated in a family situation.
If a
family
is
a
system of interacting individuals, each member
is constrained by the actions of the other members. While each person has freedom, the members are also more or less dependent on one
The behaviors in a family are not independent, free, or random, they are patterned
and structured. What one family member does
another.
or says follows from or leads to an action of
another.
one another.
One of the most important qualities
of a system is hierarchy 6 This principle is the
theme of Arthur Koestler’s The Ghost in the
Hierarchy.
Wholeness.
A
system by definition constitutes a
5
Part and parcel of the system
the attitude of holistic thinking. In
unique whole
concept
is
.
.
Machine,
order to understand this idea, examine for a
moment the opposite view physical summa-
merely
its
the
In the
summative model the whole is
with no unique qualities of
a box of stones. But in a system
a collection
own, like
whole is an
Interdependence.
integration of parts.
The reason we must view
a
system as a whole is that its parts interrelate and
affect one another. Elements A and B may be
separate when viewed apart from the system,
a mutual interaction is presbetween them, the result of which is differfrom each element individually. The parts
of a system are correlated, and the correlation
can be thought of as a constraint. An object,
person, concept, or other part of a system is
but in combination
ent
—
ent
always constrained by
its
interdependence with
other parts. In a summative model this interde-
pendent relationship does not exist. Instead,
parts are conceived of as independent elements.
(Dependence-independence actually should be
thought of as a continuum, with various parts
in the system having differing degrees of freeAs a result of interdependence, a change
son,
eral
dom.)
the
4.
For excellent discussions of hierarchy, see Donna Wil“Forms of Hierarchy: A Selected Bibliography,” GenSystems 14 (1969): 3-15; Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in
Machine
(New
York: Macmillan, 1967); W. Ross Ashby,
Walter Buckley, “Society as a Complex Adaptive SysModem Systems Research, pp. 490-513.
“Principles of the Self-Organizing System,” in Principles of
Self-Organization, ed. Heinz von Foerster and George Zopf
Rapoport, “Foreword”; Hall and Fagen, “Definition.”
(New
tem,” in Buckley,
5.
following excerpt:
There were once two Swiss watchmakers named
Bios and Mekhos, who made very fine and expensive
watches. Their names may sound a little strange, but
their fathers had a smattering of Greek and were fond
of riddles. Although their watches were in equal
demand, Bios prospered, while Mekhos just struggled along; in the end he had to close his shop and
take a job as a mechanic with Bios. The people in the
6.
argued for a long time over the reasons for this
town
development and each had a different theory to offer,
until the true explanation leaked out and proved to be
both simple and surprising.
The watches they made consisted of about one
thousand parts each, but the two rivals had used
different methods to put them together. Mekhos had
assembled his watches bit by bit rather like making
a mosaic floor out of small coloured stones. Thus
each time when he was disturbed in his work and had
to put down a partly assembled watch, it fell to
pieces and he had to start again from scratch.
Bios, on the other hand, had designed a method
of making watches by constructing, for a start, subassemblies of about ten components, each of which
held together as an independent unit. Ten of these
sub-assemblies could then be fitted together into a
—
tivity.
as reflected in the
30
York: Pergamon Press, 1962), pp. 255-78.
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
sub-system of a higher order; and ten of these subsystems constituted the whole watch.
Now it is easy to show mathematically that if a
watch consists of a thousand bits, and if some disturbance occurs at an average of once in every hundred
assembling operations
then Mekhos will take four
thousand times longer to assemble a watch than
.
.
contained whole; the face turned upward toward the apex, that of a dependent part. One is
.
the face of the master, the other the face of the
servant.” 8
—
Koester’s coined term for a system (hierar-
chy)
Bios. Instead of a single day, it will take him eleven
years. And if for mechanical bits, we substitute
amino
ical;
some
and so
between time-scales becomes astronom-
calculations indicate that the
whole
holon.
—
.
attributes
a
of
and Control. System theory pro-
is the philosophy that
happenings to future goals or pur-
poses. Systems are
most often viewed
They
What happens
oriented organisms.
are
purposes.
in a
as goal-
governed by their
system is controlled by its aims, and the system regulates its
behavior to achieve the aims. The parts of a
system must behave in accordance with its rules
or canons and must adapt to the environment
on the basis of feedback. This aspect of system
in Figure 3.1.
Koestler describes system hierarchy as the
hierarchy, like
Roman god Janus, all have two faces
looking in opposite directions: the face turned
toward the subordinate levels is that of a selfthe
7.
is
cells,
part
described in Chapter 2,
Every complex system consists of a number of
subsystems. The system therefore is a series of
levels of increasing complexity. The idea of system hierarchy can be illustrated by the “tree”
“The members of a
of
is
vides a teleological perspective. Teleology, as
method and proceeds hierarchically,
from simple sub-assemblies to more complex ones 7
effect:
body and
the larger group, culture, and society.
Self-regulation
verted to Bios’
model
individual in society
life-
time of the earth would be insufficient for producing
even an amoeba unless he [Mekhos] becomes con-
Janus
The
organs, organ systems, and
acids, protein molecules, organelles,
on, the ratio
is
social holon, consisting hierarchically
functioning,
up
Koestler, Ghost, 45-47.
8.
Ibid., p. 48.
Figure 3.1. System hierarchy.
31
known
as cybernetics, will
in detail in the next section.
be taken
.
GENERAL THEORIES
Thus systems
Fagen describe three kinds of structured change
that might occur over time in the process of
morphogenesis 13 The first is progressive segregation
a process of movement from wholeness
can be included in the system or the environment depending on the focus of the observer.
toward summativity, movement along the continuum of dependence-independence toward
division among subsystems. This kind of
change may lead to greater differentiation of
An open
Interchange with the Environment.
tem by
definition interacts with
ment.
takes in
It
and
lets
its
sys-
environ-
out matter and energy.
are said to have inputs and outputs
This concept follows logically from the ideas of
hierarchy and cybernetics. A particular element
.
,
element in the environment will affect the
elements of the system in the same way that a
suprasystem would affect its subsystems and
subsystem function. Progressive systemization is
movement toward interdepenthe opposite
dence among parts. Both kinds of changes can
environment;
occur in the same system simultaneously or
An
The system
vice versa.
the
environment
affects the
system
affects the
—
sequentially. Progressive centralization (or decen-
9
.
may
tralization)
Another quality of systems
Balance.
or homeostasis
10
.
This quality
is
balance
related to self-
is
regulation and system organization. In order to
increasing
avoid the fate of a closed system
entropy
—
— the open system must maintain
stay in balance, hold
do
this.
One of
its
own.
is
able of sensing deviations
tems
that
from
of maintaining
particular
this aspect
and
may
subsystem tends to become more and
in guiding the system; with
more depen-
more important
other subsystems thus becoming
dent on this leading part. This quality of adaptability and change points up the dynamic nature
of the complex, open system.
cap-
the “assigned”
correcting these tendencies.
on cybernetics covers
to
many
The system must be
balance in the system.
section
9.
must work
the primary tasks of
interacting subsystems
norm and of
It
itself,
also occur in systems
take place simultaneously with segregation or
systemization. In progressive centralization a
Equifinality.
The
Finality
is
the goal achievement
or task accomplishment of a system. Equifinal-
of sys-
ity
means
accomplished in
in detail.
may be
many ways and from many
The adaptable system,
that a particular final state
different starting points.
which has
Change and Adaptability. Because it exists in a
changing environment, the system must be
adaptable 11 This adaptability often is accomplished by the homeostatic quality described
above. In complex systems such as sociocul-
final
tural systems, adaptability involves
may
tor
change and reorder themselves on the basis of
environmental pressures. Homeostasis designates the equilibrium maintenance feature of
puts)
can achieve that
variety of different environ-
relate the
in different
same
ways
basic information (into achieve the
in Personality
ities
of wholeness, interdependence, hierarchy,
environmental interchange,
self-regulation,
Ashby, “Principles.”
equilibrium, adaptability, and equifinality.
and Fagen, “Definition,” Buckley, “Adaptive System”; Koestler, Ghost.
11. Hall
12.
Buckley, “Adaptive System,”
same
answer to our initial question, “What is a
system?” we can now answer: An open system
is a set of objects with attributes that interrelate
in an environment. The system possesses qual-
Theory,” in Buckley, Modem Systems Research, pp. 343-50;
Hall and Fagen, “Definition.”
10.
a
In
.
“The Open System
in
results (outputs).
systems; morphogenesis designates the structure-changing aspect 12 A. D. Hall and R. E.
Allport,
a final state as a goal,
.
more than
homeostasis. Advanced systems must be able to
Gordon
state
mental conditions. Inputs never equal outputs.
The system is capable of processing inputted
14
In
data in different ways to produce its output
classroom instruction, for example, an instruc-
.
p. 493.
32
13.
Hall and Fagen, “Definition,” pp. 85-86.
14.
Bertalanffy, General System Theory, chap. 3.
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
What
Cybernetics?
Is
is the study of regulation and consystems, with emphasis on the nature of
feedback. 15 An important feature of open sys-
tems, as we have just seen, is that they are
regulated, that they seek goals, and that they
therefore are purposeful. This special area of
system functioning
is
claimed as the territory of
cybernetics.
output to gauge effect and make necessary ad-
The
simplest cybernetic device con-
of a sensor,
sists
a
comparator, and an activator.
The sensor provides feedback
parator,
which
to the
for the field. ...
entire field
of Cybernetics. 18
Obviously, feedback mechanisms specifiand behavior in general vary in their degree of control complexity. In an early article
cally
source of the energy involved in the behavior.
com-
The
in turn
The
activator.
sence of any
name
Rosenbleuth, Wiener, and Bigelow provide a
model of this increasing complexity. 19 In the
model (Figure 3.2) the most basic distinction is
between active and passive behavior. An organism displaying active behavior is the primary
Cybernetics deals with the ways systems
(along with their subsystems) use their own
justments.
concerning these problems, and by the abcommon terminology, or even a single
We have decided to call the
of control and communication theory,
whether in the machine or in the animal, by the name
literature
Cybernetics
trol in
provides guidance to the
activator in turn produces an
active
organism
itself
provides the stim-
ulus. In passive behavior the
output that
affects the environment in some
way. This fundamental process of outputfeedback-adjustment is the central theme of
cybernetics.
organism receives
inputs or stimuli. Passive behavior
is primarily
response to outside energy. Within the category of active behavior, a further division can
be made between purposeless, or random, and
a
The field of cybernetics was developed by
Norbert Wiener and his associates. 16 Wiener’s
primary discipline was mathematics, but he
purposeful behavior. Purposeful behavior is directed toward an objective or aim; random be-
considers cybernetics to be an interdisciplinary
is
“The most
area:
fruitful areas for the
havior
growth of
the sciences were those which had been neglected as a no-man’s land between the various
established fields.” 17 Wiener’s early work on
less
computers and neurology led him to see patof control behavior, which he believes to
be significant. Wiener discusses the beginnings
ing.
[We] had already become aware of the essential unity
of the set of problems centering about communication, control, and statistical mechanics, whether
in
the machine or in living tissue. On the other hand we
is
found
baud, What
Is
7,
17.
York:
systems, however, use positive
itself.
more
dictive behavior
no. 6 (1964). Supplementary in-
18.
Gordon Pask, An Approach to
& Row, 1961); G. T. GuilCybernetics? (New York: Grove Press, 1959).
MIT
model.
to adjust and adapt durThis dynamic level will be
detail in the discussion
of
feedback loops and networks. Further, complex
systems may be predictive or nonpredictive. Pre-
in
is
based on anticipated position
Ibid., p. 11.
Arturo Rosenblueth, Norbert Wiener, and Julian
Bigelow, “Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology,” Philosophy
of Science 10 (1943): 18-24 (reprinted in Buckley, Modern
19.
York: Harper
16. For a historical review see Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics
or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
(New
Complex
explained in
Rollo Handy and Paul Kurtz, “A Current Appraisal of
the Behavioral Sciences: Communication Theory,” Ameri-
(New
as indicated in the
ing the action
were seriously hampered by the lack of unity of the
formation
complex,
and negative feedbacks
15.
Cybernetics
indicated, cybernetics
uses feedback in a restricted sense but does not
modify or adjust behavior in the course of act-
in the early 1940s:
can Behavioral Scientist
As we have
not.
Purposeful behavior may be further subdivided into complex and simple feedback mechanisms. 20 In the simple condition the organism
terns
of cybernetics
is
interested in purposeful levels of behavior in
systems. All purposeful behavior requires feedback; the nature of the feedback may be more or
Systems Research, pp. 221—25).
20.
Press, 1961), pp. 1-29.
I
have changed the original nomenclature here to avoid
confusion and inconsistency with previous
Ibid., p. 2.
this chapter.
33
The
authors’ intent
is
word usage
unchanged.
in
.
GENERAL THEORIES
or response rather than actual position or response.
As
a
good hunter knows, you do not
running animal; rather, you anticipate where it will be when the bullet reaches it.
aim
at the
Finally, prediction itself is
as indicated
model,
by the
more or less
final
accurate,
distinction in the
The next model
as a
illustrates a
simple switch such
thermostat or circuit breaker.
model
third
which
A
chooses a channel or position on the basis of
criteria. In a guided missile, for example, the
guidance system may specify turning in one
on feedback from
direction or another, based
orders of prediction
The
illustrates selection control in
simple model of feedback is represented in
Figure 3.3. As previously indicated a part of the
output from the system is returned as feedback,
the target.
and certain internal controls or adjustments take
place. In Figure 3.3, B is an energy source di-
system must possess certain control guidelines.
A
recting outputs to C.
A
is
the control
mechan-
ism responding to feedback from C. Depending
on the complexity of the system and the nature
of the directedness of output, the control
mechanism itself is restricted in the kind of
control
it
can exert. Figure 3.4
possibilities.
The
illustrates
some
21
model
where the
first
in Figure 3.4 illustrates a
signal itself is modified (for
example, amplified) by A. The high-pitched
squeal in a loudspeaker system is an example.
situation
The process of system regulation through
feedback involves several facets. The regulated
The
control center
must “know” what envi-
ronmental conditions to respond to and how. It
must possess a sensitivity to aspects of the envi-
ronment
that are critical to
its
system responds to it.*Negative feedback is an
error message indicating deviation; the system
adjusts by reducing or counteracting the deviation. Negative feedback is the most important
type of feedback in homeostasis, for the princi22. Walter Buckley, Sociology and
21.
Adapted from Guilbaud,
(Englewood
Cybernetics.
goalseeking. 22
Feedback basically may be classified as positive or negative, depending on the way the
Modem
Systems Theory
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp.
First,
Predictive
>
etc.,
52—53.
second,
orders
of prediction
Complex
Purposeful
Active
Behavior
i
Nonpredictive
*
Simple
-<
Nonpurposeful
(random)
*
Passive
From
Philosophy of Science, “Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology,”
Bigelow. Copyright
by Arturo Rosenblueth, Norbert Weiner, and Julian
© 1943 by The Williams & Wilkins Co. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Figure 3.2. Model of cybernetic complexity.
34
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
pie of deviation-counteracting is the focus of
traditional cybernetics .• A system can also respond by amplifying or maintaining deviation.
of interaction is important
morphogenesis, or system growth (for
that subsystems respond to one another in
mutual interdependence. As a result the concept
of feedback is expanded for complex systems.
In a complex system a series of feedback loops
exist within and among subsystems, forming
networks. At some points the feedback loops
example, learning). The inflationary cycle in
economics is an example of positive feedback
effects. The growth of a city is another. In
communication when a speaker receives negative feedback from a listener, the speaker knows
ways, consistent with the basic feedback principle, system output returns as feedback input.
No matter how complicated the network, one
always comes back to the beginning.
When
this
happens, the feedback
is
said to be
positive. This kind
in
he or she
from
a
is
are positive, at other points negative.
missing the aim. Negative feedback
fellow
communicator usually calls for a
gap between how
shift in strategy to close the
the speaker wants the listener to respond and
the actual response. Whether in mechanical or
human
systems, the response to negative feed-
is “Cut back, slow down, discontinue.”
Response to positive feedback is “Increase,
maintain, keep going.”
Our discussion of feedback thus far has given
the impression that a system responds as a unit
to feedback from the outside. This impression
back
realistic
is
a
only for the simplest systems such
heater-thermostat arrangement.
As
as
of
advanced
systems are more complex. A subsystem at any
moment may be part of the larger system or
part of the environment 23 Further, we know
a series
hierarchically ordered subsystems,
.
Magoroh Maruyama, “The Second Cybernetics:
Deviation-Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes,” American
Scientist 51 (1963): 164-79 (reprinted in Buckley, Modem
Systems Research, pp. 304-138.
23.
Selector
Figure 3.3.
A
simple feedback model.
Figure 3.4. Illustrative control models.
35
But
al-
.
GENERAL THEORIES
A
simple illustration of
a
system network
is
cybernetics
is
a
central concept in system
24 In
the example of urbanization in Figure 3. 5.
theory. Feedback and control relate inextricably
this figure the pluses represent positive relation-
to the essence
ships, the
minuses negative relationships. In
of open-system theory. The
cybernetic elements of control, regulation, and
feedback provide a concrete explanation of such
system qualities as wholeness (a portion of the
system cannot be understood apart from its
loops between subsystems); interdependence
(subsystems are constrained by mutual feedbacks); self-regulation (a system maintams balance and changes by responding appropriately
a
positive relationship the variables increase or
decrease together. In a negative relationship as
one increases, the other decreases. For example,
as the number of people in the city (P) increases,
modernization also increases. With increased
modernization comes increased migration,
which
in turn further increases the population.
This relationship
feedback loop.
trated
by the
A
an example of
is
of the
effect
to positive and negative feedbacks); interchange
a positive
negative relationship
number of
is
with the environment (inputs and outputs can be
illus-
of feedback loops).
Although these cybernetic concepts origi-
largely explained in terms
diseases
(D) on population (P)
As our
discussion
up
to this
nated in the fields of physiology, engineering,
and mathematics, they have tremendous impli-
point indicates,
24. Ibid.
N umber of people
From American
Scientist,
+
“The Second Cybernetics,” by Magorah Maruyama. Copyright©
of the publisher.
Figure 3.5.
A
simplified feedback network.
36
1963. Reprinted
by permission
,
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
cations in the behavioral and social sciences as
well. 25 As Wiener states, “This principle [feed-
elements, not on the type of necessity employed. This idea is controversial, as we shall
back] in control applies not merely to the
Panama locks, but to states, armies, and indi-
see in the criticism section of this chapter.
vidual
human
feedback
beings.
.
This matter of social
.
.
of very great sociological and an-
is
Systems Theory as an Approach
Knowledge
’’•^General
thropological interest.” 26
to
Principles of cybernetics lead to
one of the
purported advantages of system theory;
namely, that it is broad enough to allow various
alternative explanatory logics. 27 As Peter
General system theory (GST)
Monge
puts
“Systems theory provides an
explanatory framework that is capable of incorporating both behavioral and action posi-
known
tions. 28
He
phenomena. 30 Here
scribes GST:
it,
believes this incorporation
because the basic teleology of systems,
possible
by
their cybernetic functions,
of two types.
First, the system
may
is
so
made
may
sity
developed
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a wellbiologist 29 Basically,
postulates
primarily by
GST
concepts governing systems in general and
applies these generaliations to numerous
how
is
Bertalanffy de-
It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems
of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general.
to negative feed-
In this way we postulate a
General System Theory.
much as a heater responds to a thermoThis off-on behavior displays causal necesand follows nonactional ontology. Second,
back,
stat.
GST was
the system concept.
be
achieve an end or goal
by responding automatically
is a broad, mulapproach to knowledge based on
tidisciplinary
.
.
new
discipline called
.
General System Theory, therefore, is a general
science of “wholeness” which up till now was considered a vague, hazy, and semi-metaphysical concept. In elaborate form it would be a logico-
some systems or subsystems may behave with
one of many possiof action to arrive at an end state.
intention, actively choosing
mathematical discipline,
ble courses
applicable to the various empirical sciences. 31
Human
social systems, in contrast to physical
Bertalanffy
systems such as the thermostat or guided misare viewed as purposeful in this way. This
kind of explanation employs practical necessity
is highly actional in ontology. Hence, purpose ,may be explained by two alternative
logics, and system theory is believed to ac-
World War
Man
and Society,”
387-400.
26.
in
promoted
of these.
“Toward
Buckley,
Norbert Wiener, The
a
in
II
his
the
did he feel comfortable about
view primarily through
war he
lectures
and symposia. Bertalanffy describes the
cism he faced:
The proposal of system theory was
criti-
received incredulously as fantastic or presumptuous. Either
it
Cybernetic Model of
Modem
Systems Research pp.
For
—
biographical and bibliographical sketch of Ber“Ludwig von Bertalanffy,” General Systems 17
(1972): 219-28.
29.
a
talanffy, see
Human Use
Cybernetics and Society (Boston:
of
Houghton
Human
Beings:
30. For an example of formalized GST, see Masanao Toda
and Emir H. Shuford, “Logic of Systems: Introduction to a
Formal Theory of Structure,” General Systems 10 (1965):
Mifflin, 1954),
pp. 49-50.
For a listing of these logics, see Peter Monge, “The
Systems Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of
Human Communication,” Communication Quarterly 25
27.
3-27.
(1977): 19-29.
28.
GST
publicizing his system ideas. After the
Therefore what distinguishes system theory
from other approaches is its high level of generality and emphasis on interrelationships among
25. See Karl Deutsch,
conceived of
At that time he began to think
about biology in organismic terms, but this
proved an unpopular approach. Not until after
and
either
purely formal but
early 1920s. 32
sile,
commodate
first
in itself
Ibid., p. 28.
31.
Bertalanffy, General System Theory, pp. 32-37.
32.
For a brief survey of the history of GST, see Ber-
talanffy, General
37
System Theory, chap.
1.
.
GENERAL THEORIES
—
was argued it was trivial because the so-called
isomorphisms were merely examples of the truism
they are taken seriously and
.
.
.
.
.
tween two models or between an abstract
model and an observed phenomenon. Two sys-
.
Bertalanffy persisted, however, and in 1954
tems that are widely different are said to be
isomorphic if their behaviors are governed by
the same principles. A generalized model such
was
GST
is
not a singular theory developed by one person.
GST itself was promoted by Bertalanffy,
work in other fields.
The two most important cognate areas, which
GST
attempts to elucidate these principles.
While
as
others were doing similar
Following
exponential law of growth applies to certain cells,
to populations of bacteria, of animals or humans, and
to progress of scientific research measured by the
number of publications in genetics or science in general.
The
different.
same
the
entities in
.
.
.
.
.
are completely
The need
for greater integration of knowlmany areas such as communication is
Kenneth Boulding provides a compelling argument for the use of GST as an integrator of knowledge:
The need
for general systems theory
accentu-
is
by the present sociological situation in science.
crisis of science today arises because of the
increasing difficulty of such profitable talk among
ated
allied area
is
systems
sci-
sciences are applied tech-
.
The
.
nological fields, including systems engineering
scientists as a
(development of people-machine systems),
operations research (control of personnel, machines, materials, and money), and human en-
Communication between
whole. Specialization has outrun Trade.
the disciplines
becomes
talanffy took these fields to be evidence for the
of his more general perspective: “Con-
.
cepts like wholeness, organization, teleology,
ness
sci-
.
.
means that someone who ought to know somesomeone else knows isn’t able to find it out
for lack
of generalized
ears.
It is one of the main objectives of General System
Theory to develop these generalized ears 37
Ibid., p. 14. For a thorough review of GST criticism
and rebuttal, see Ludwig Bertalanffy, “General System
A Critical Review,” General Systems 12 (1962):
I- 20 (reprinted in Buckley, Modem Systems Research, pp.
33.
.
—
35. Bertalanffy,
II- 30).
34.
.
.
thing that
ence to be unscientific or metaphysical. Today
Theory
is
breaking up into isolated subcultures with only tenuous lines of communication between them.
One
wonders sometimes if science will grind to a stop in
an assemblage of walled-in hermits, each mumbling
to himself words in a private language that only he
can understand.
The spread of specialized deaf.
and directiveness appeared in mechanistic
in-
creasingly difficult, and the Republic of Learning
gineering (work-efficiency development). Ber-
viability
is
critical.
.
The systems
question
Nevertheless, the mathematical law
.
36
.
edge in
chapter.
ence.
an example:
is
An
were developed almost simultaneously with
Bertalanffy’s work, were Norbert Wiener’s
cybernetics and Shannon and Weaver’s information theory. In fact, these three approaches
so completely support one another that they are
like tributaries of the same river. Since information theory is a narrower approach, we will
consider it separately in Part III. Keep in mind,
though, that it is part of the broader GST
perspective. Cybernetics, on the other hand, is
clearly a macro approach and is so closely tied
to system theory that we must consider it in this
Another closely
to
primary aim of GST is to integrate accumulated knowledge into a clear and realistic
framework. General system theorists attempt
to do this through the principle of isomorphism
An isomorphism is a structural similarity be-
research 33
born. 34 Like most other movements,
amenable
A
.
the Society for General Systems Research
as
scientific analysis.” 35
mathematics can be applied to all sorts of things
... or it was false and misleading because superficial
analogies
camouflage actual difference.
Or,
again, it was philosophically and methodologically
unsound because the alleged ‘irreducibility’ of higher
levels to lower ones tended to impede analytical
that
The
Society’s yearbook, General Systems, has been
lished annually since 1956.
theoretical
It is
and applied work
in
pub-
“A
Critical
Review,”
36.
Bertalanffy, General System Theory, p. 33.
37.
Kenneth Boulding, “General Systems Theory
an excellent compilation of
Skeleton of Science,” in Buckley,
GST.
p. 4.
38
p. 14.
Modem
—The
Systems Research,
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
individual, are not considered to be basic in
Communication as a System
System theory and cybernetics
person-to-person contact. Rather, external acts
are abstract
words, they provide a set of
logics about things in general without specifytheories. In other
ing what those things are. They do not become
communication theories until someone applies
them
human
to
interaction per
se.
He
does not
mean
imply that internal variables such as atand emotions are not important. In large measure they shape how an indito
titudes, values,
Many
have done precisely that. In this book
of communication are
presented. Most of these, however, deal with
theorists
vidual behaves. From a system point of view,
however, the behavior itself is what counts.
Consider for example, an assembly line worker
in a factory. This worker has many feelings,
several system theories
communication settings. For examChapter 9 on interpersonal communithe work of the Palo Alto group is
discussed. Their theory, based on system prinparticular
ple,
are the sole vehicles for linking individuals in
the communication system. Fisher refers to this
principle as externalization.
in
thoughts, emotions, attitudes, and values that
are important in determining her behavior.
cation,
thinking on communication in relationships. In
Coworkers and superiors, however, have no
to know what is happening inside this
person except by observing her actual be-
Chapter
haviors.
ciples, lays the
11
groundwork
for
much of our
way
on group and organizational com-
munication, two important system approaches
are discussed. Fisher’s ideas
nication deal with the
ways
and
tive,
ual behavior
the
(New
Fisher, Perspectives on
is
not sufficient for understanding
communication system.
Instead,
one must
Two
Comcom-
methods of analyzing behavior in communication situations have been employed. 39 The first
is the human system model. Here one observes
munication in what he calls the pragmatic
work, summarized in this
system view of
communication. From his pragmatic perspective Fisher emphasizes four aspects of communication: individual behavior, sequential
interaction patterns, content and relationship
dimensions, and the social system.
Behavior is important as the smallest unit of
analysis in the communication system. Individuals communicate by behaving in ways that
have potential for eliciting meanings in others.
Since communicators have no direct access to
the thoughts, feelings, and meanings of other
Aubrey
sequential interaction
consider sets of acts that are linked to one another in the stream of interaction.
individual behaviors in an attempt to reveal an
section, constitutes a general
38. B.
is
Although individual behavior is the
most basic unit of analysis, observing individ-
perspective. 38 His
which
focus of the pragmatic perspec-
according to Fisher,
patterns.
tion networks. Clearly, system theory has had a
major impact on the field of communication.
One of the strongest advocates for the system approach to communication is B. Aubrey
people, these variables,
says.
The second
that interaction in
groups follows system patterns and phases. The
approach of Farace, Monge, and Russell deals
with organizations as systems of communica-
Fisher. In his book Perspectives on Human
munication he applies system concepts to
Through observation other workers
meaning to some of what she does
will assign
on group commu-
understanding of the person as a subsystem of
communication. Fisher prefers the second
method, the interact system model, which takes
of analysis the interact, a set of
as the basic unit
linked acts. Analysis of this kind
is
necessary for
understanding actual communication. The
of acts, is one person’s behavior
followed by the behavior of another. Such beinteract, or set
havior usually
statement
is
is
verbal; that
is,
one individual’s
followed by another individual’s
statement. Nonverbal acts also count.
interact
are internal in the
is
a
set
A double
of three statements,
a triple
Aubrey Fisher and Leonard C. Hawes, “An Interact
System Model: Generating a Grounded Theory of Small
39. B.
Human Communication
York: Macmillan, 1978).
Groups,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 57
39
(1971):
444-53.
.
GENERAL THEORIES
of four. Theoretically
any number of statements in
we
interact a set
look
at
freedom to allow for adjustment or adaptation
to changing circumstances.
could
row
a
as a
Content and relationship dimensions, the third
unit of analysis, although in practice single and
double interacts generally are
human ob-
all a
part of Fisher’s application,
work of relationship
early
server can process.
Fisher emphasizes
two
The
related elements of
ter 9).
the idea of
sions.
comes from the
Chaptwo dimen-
theorists (see
Any communication
act has
Punctuation of interactional sequences
is
the
The first relays information content; the
second provides information about the relationship between the participants. The latter kind of
natural grouping of interacts. Interaction
is
not
information
interaction analysis.
punctuation, the second
is
first
is
stochastic probability.
tells
the participants
just a string of acts. Rather, acts cluster into
pret the content message.
groupings that help the observer make sense
out of the communication event. For example,
worker begins
suppose that our hypothetical factory worker
often tells jokes to the people working around
her. Whenever she says, “Have you heard the
she
one about ...” the others grimace. Her introduction to the joke is followed by nonverbal
relationship level they
level,
ahead,
The
Remember
that parts
correlated or constrained in
of
by
some way or
an-
nature of the communication system
the
ways
in
which
other
act.
Or, to
will be followed
is
acts are connected.
act has a particular probability
the coin, an antecedent act
by
a
is
known
approach
is
is
dis-
the
That communication involves inpeople should be amply clear
among
this point.
Further,
Communication
is
therefore so-
is
created.
can be viewed
words, the system can
the social system
be understood
subsequent act with pre-
in
terms of
at least
three levels:
subsystem, system, and suprasystem. In Fisher’s terms the subsystem is the individual
as a stochastic relationship. In a
human
being, the system is interacting group,
and the suprasystem is the larger organization
acts are linked with greater frequency than others. In the preceding example
the coworkers’ grimaces almost always follow
the introduction of a joke. The communication
system certain
or social context in which the interaction takes
The system can also be viewed in terms
of a hierarchy of repetitive interactions. Acts are
part of interacts; interacts proceed in phases
over time; and phases are repeated in cycles. For
place.
system in the factory is structured or patterned
by a large and complex set of interacts that vary
in their degree of predictability. Ideally the
example, the factory workers proceed through
various phases of interaction. When a new
communication system has enough structure or
predictability to
in Fisher’s
hierarchically. In other
dictable frequency. This antecedent-subsequent
link
element
others, a social system
given
of following an-
flip
your jokes,” but on the
may be saying, “Yes, go
joke around.” This intriguing
between individuals; it does not rely
on their internal states. Thus our factory
worker herself is not a communication system
in Fisher’s eyes. But when she interacts with
to note
A
Her
teraction
Thus the system has structure. One
ways of conceptualizing the patterned
patterned.
of the
is
funny story but
friendliness.
cial.
system are not random, but
other. Events in a
a
Although machines can assist in the communication system, the human element is its
essence. Further, a social system relies on in-
one prinsystem are
that
a
like to
final
teraction
Stochastic probability refers to the patterned
is
own
expressions say on the content
are tired of
social system
interact in this situation.
of systems
we
facial
to inter-
element of interpersonal communication
cussed in greater detail in Chapter 9.
mean, “Oh, no, not another corny joke.”
These two acts are paired because they are a
meaningful whole; they constitute a natural
ciple
“We
how
So when our factory
joke, she not only
a
projecting her
is
coworkers’
to
nature of interaction.
tell
preparing the others to hear
expressions from the others that are taken
facial
to
remain stable but sufficient
40
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
worker joins the group, for instance, the group
may go through a phase of friendly acceptance,
followed by a checking-out phase. This period
could be followed by a phase of testing the new
employee, followed by the phase of full integration into the work group. This series of phases
over time would be repeated in cycles as new
employees entered the scene.
“General System Theory manifests a fundamental ambiguity in that at points it seems to
a substantive perspective making
specific theoretical claims and at other points to
present
present a general abstract language devoid of
specific theoretical substance for the unification
of alternative theoretical views.” 41
The second issue relates to the first. Does the
theory’s openness provide flexibility of thought
or confusing equivocality? This concern relates
Criticism of System
Theory
to the criterion of theoretical appropriateness.
Detractors claim that the theory embodies what
Delia calls “a fancy form of the fallacy of
System theory has been attacked on several
fronts, although its supporters remain undaunted. 40 Six major issues have emerged: (1)
Does the breadth and generality of system
theory provide the advantage of integration or
the disadvantage of ambiguity? (2) Does the
equivocation.” In other words, by permitting a
variety of substantive applications in different
theoretical domains,
sistencies
theory’s openness provide flexibility in application or confusing equivocality? (3) Is system
another. 42 Supporters answer that this openness
is
are without
categories 43
The
can be fruitfully applied
it
is
everything,
it
is
really nothing.
its
cake and eat
it
too. Either
it
If all
perspective or
vides
as
must
way of
basis for
Human Communication:
a general framework without explaining
real-world events, or it must abandon general
integration in favor of making substantive
claims. Jesse Delia expresses this concern:
nication
jan,
conceptualizing,
knowing why
it
pro-
things occur
Study of
Critique and Response,” CommuSee also Edgan Tasch-
Quarterly 25 (1977): 51.
“The Entropy of Complex Dynamic Systems,”
Be-
havioral Science 19 (1975): 3.
42. Delia, “Alternative Perspectives,” pp. 51-52.
43.
For arguments supporting system theory, see especially
“A Critical Review”; Buckley, Sociology, Fish-
Wayne Beach, “Stocktaking Open-Systems Research
A Critique and Proposals for Action” (Paper
delivered at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Phoenix, Arizona, November 1977).
and Theory:
Bertalanffy,
Monge, “Systems
little
they do. Fisher agrees:
41. Jesse Delia, “Alternative Perspectives for the
remain
er, Perspectives'
third issue
ateness.
phenomena follow the same system principles,
we have no basis for understanding anything
apart from anything else. Along the same line,
some critics point out that system theory cannot have
imposing arbitrary theoretical
is also a matter of appropriSome critics question whether the systems approach is a theory at all, claiming that it
has no explanatory power. While it gives us a
broad range of phenomena. Others, howsystem theory merely confuses.
ever, claim that
If
one of the main advantages of system theory:
It does not bias the researcher with an a priori
notion of what to expect. Consequently, it
promotes research that looks for things as they
issue clearly relates to theoretical
From the beginning supporters have
claimed that system theory provides a common
vocabulary to integrate the sciences. It estabto a
system theories can employ various logics,
are not necessarily consistent with one
which
scope.
40.
Two
framework may even
the supposed unity brought about by system
theory? This problem is exacerbated by the fact
that
theory help to simplify, or does it make things
more complicated than they really are?
lishes useful logics that
cannot prevent incon-
is
tem theory generated useful research? (5) Is the
system paradigm an arbitrary convention, or
does it reflect reality in nature? (6) Does system
first
it
these applications.
contradict each other. Where, then, Delia asks,
theory merely a philosophical perspective, or
does it provide useful explanation? (4) Has sys-
The
among
theories using a system
Perspective.”
41
GENERAL THEORIES
dilemma.
These principles are quite abstract (that is to say,
general). Consequently, they can be applied in numerous ways by differing theorists with equally different results. In fact, system “theory” is probably a
misnomer. ... In short, system theory is a loosely
organized and highly abstract set of principles, which
serve to direct our thinking but which are subject to
numerous
really there.
ing a
its
we
same thing
the
.
.
.
the same.” 47 Bertalanffy
objection the “so what?” argument: If
calls this
ability to gener-
find an analogy
between two events,
it
is
meaningless. 48
The
system theory is parsimony. Adherents claim that the world is so
complex that a sensible framework such as system theory is necessary to sort out the elements
of world processes. Critics generally doubt that
events are that complex. They claim that sys-
research.” 45 Again, critics return to the extreme generality of the approach as the basis of
their criticism. They claim that the theory sim-
ply does not suggest substantive questions for
investigation.
final
issue of
tem theory overcomplicates events
the contrary advocates claim that the
sentially simple. Charles
by system theory
at
points out: “[Events]
them
make them
does not
a perspective
new ways of looking
vocabulary for orderattributed similarities
As Delia
explanations; calling
ical
To
It
have different referents; they require different
According to Donald Cushman,
which has produced
more staunch advocates than theoretical empir-
suggests
invalid.
the theory
events are only semantic and are there-
those events.
ate research.
fresh perspective provided
is
it
events that are not
fore useless for providing understanding of
fourth issue relates to system theory’s
is
a useful
complex world,
among
theory could be highly explanatory.
“systems
among
on the other hand,
If,
provides merely
interpretations. 44
heuristic value, questioning
they really are,
as
posits similarities
System advocates probably would agree with
this assessment of general system theory but
point out that any given substantive system
The
theory attempts to describe
If the
phenomena
Berger
that are es-
states the case
against overcomplication:
old problems
and thus is highly heuristic. Beach points out,
for example, that a great deal of fruitful research
followed Fisher and Hawes’s 1971 article on
small group systems. 46 Fisher himself has done
research on small group interaction. This work
is presented in Chapter 11.
The fifth issue relates to the validity of system theory. Critics question whether system
theory was developed to reflect what really
happens in nature or to represent a useful con-
In the behavioral sciences
of what
...
we may
be the victims
Irrelevant variety
call irrelevant variety.
I
is
generated by the presence of attributes in a situation
do with the phenomenon we are
studying but which give the impression that what we
Merely because
are studying is very complex.
which have
little
to
.
.
.
persons differ along a large number of physical,
psychological, and social dimensions, does not mean
that
all
of these differences will make
a difference in
terms of the phenomena we are studying. ...
probably the case that relatively few variables
mately can account for most of the action. 49
It is
ulti-
vention for conceptualizing complex processes.
The
system advocates themselves differ in
views of the function of the approach in
Critics place system theory in a
In fact,
their
down
criticism
to
two
against system theory boils
basic problems.
First,
system
this regard.
47. Delia, “Alternative Perspectives,” p. 51.
44. Fisher, Perspectives, p. 196. See also Bertalanffy, “Critical
48.
Review.”
Bertalanffy, “Critical Review.”
49. Charles Berger,
“The Covering Law
Perspective as a
45.
Donald Cushman, “The Rules Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication,”
Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication,” Communication Quarterly 75 (1977): 7-18. See also
Communication Quarterly 25 (1977): 30-45.
Gerald R. Miller, “The Pervasiveness and Marvelous Complexity of Human Communication: A Note of Skepticism”
(Keynote address delivered at the Fourth Annual Conference in Communication, California State University,
Fresno, May 1977). See also Beach, “Stocktaking.
Aubrey Fisher and Leonard Hawes, “An Interact
System Model: Generating a Grounded Theory of Small
46. B.
Group Decision-Making,”
(1971):
Quarterly Journal of Speech 58
4430-53. See also Beach, “Stocktaking.”
42
GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY AND CYBERNETICS
theory is said to be so general as to be void of
theoretical value. Second, there is disagreement
and ambiguity about what the role of system
theory is or should be in communication inquiry. This latter criticism
is
perhaps unfair, in
theory for what
We
it is,
time
should recognize system
a general approach to the
second major element of communication process is self-regulation, which is accomplished
by feedback and adaptation. Third, communication is organized hierarchically. The principle of
hierarchy states that whatever
is observed is
always part of a larger picture. Hierarchical organization has long been used to analyze communication events, as we shall see repeatedly
propriate.
throughout this text. Fourth, dynamism or
change is an important aspect of communica-
What Do We Know about Communication
as a System?
summary, system theory
presents the
—
—
study
world. Let the critics examine particular
theories of communication that have taken a
system approach. The following chapters
summarize this second kind of criticism as ap-
In
communication process interrelate to form a
whole that is not divisible into parts. System
theory states that to isolate any single part for
which, ironically, we do all the
distorts the nature of the whole. The
that system theory in the general sense is not
intended to represent the substance of particular
objects of study.
process nature of communication. The first of
these is holism, which suggests that parts of the
tion. Processual events move; they are not
static. Any system, including a communication
system, constantly works to maintain homeostasis, but it also realizes morphogenesis or
most
and complete discussion of communication from a general process point of view. Four
key elements in system theory highlight the
direct
movement from one
43
state to another.
CHAPTER
Symbolic
4
Interactionism and
Rules Theory
In the previous chapter we reviewed system theory, which represents a popular tool
of communication. This chapter covers two other general
Symbolic Interactionism
for explaining the process nature
in
Symbolic interactionism contains a core of
premises about communication and
Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer
published a compilation of articles within the
area in which they isolate seven basic theoretical
and methodological propositions from sym-
respects and thus are easily integrated
bolic interactionism, each identifying a central
common
theoretical orientations:
symbolic interactionism and rules theory. These bodies of theory,
which capture the symbolic nature of communication,
many
are consistent
with one another
society.
into a single chapter.
concept of the tradition:
Symbolic interactionism, a formulation
primarily from the field of sociology, is the
broadest overview of the role of communication in society.
1
.
The meaning component in human conduct: Dishuman behavior and interaction are carried on
medium of symbols and their meanings.
The social sources of humanness: The individual
tinctly
through the
provides an excellent launch
It
2.
pad for scores of other theories of interaction.
In fact, proponents of symbolic interactionism
maintain that many of the more specific
becomes humanized through
3.
Society as process:
theories of
fully
socialization are
4.
communication, language, and
subsumed under this broader
framework. It will become apparent in this
chapter that symbolic interactionism
not
a
theories
may
fall.
which numerous
This point
the previous chapters,
for
is
voluntaristic
component
is
most use-
human
conduct:
beings are active in shaping their own
Human
in
A dialectical conception of mind: Consciousness,
or thinking, involves interaction within oneself.
5.
6.
from
The
constructive, emergent nature of
human
Human beings construct their behavior in
the course of its execution.
conduct:
illustrates that
theories cannot be
viewed as a series of independent explanations of some phenomenon.
Theories interrelate, overlap, and fall into patterns. It is often hard to know where one theory
ends and another begins.
The necessity of sympathetic introspection: An
understanding of human conduct requires study of
the actors’ covert behavior. 1
7.
For purposes of discussion the symbolic inmovement can be divided into trends.
we will look at the foundations of sym-
teraction
The rules perspective became popular in
communication circles during the 1970s. Rules
theorists have gone beyond symbolic interactionism to discuss the specific mechanisms at
work
society
conceived as consisting of people in interaction.
The
really
specific
a transition
it
Human
behavior.
is
theory but a theoretical perspective or
orientation under
interaction with other
persons.
First,
bolic interaction in the early oral tradition. Sec-
ond,
we
will cover the
growing out of these
everyday interaction. They teach that
people generate rules for interaction and use
these rules to govern social behavior.
in
1.
Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer,
bolic Interaction
45
two competing schools
earlier foundations.
eds.,
Fi-
Sym-
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978), p. 437.
GENERAL THEORIES
nally,
we
will
list
specific subareas
interactionism, one of
movement
cal
— we
which
of symbolic
that a
person’s behavior could not be studied apart
from the
setting in
which the behavior occurred
or apart from the individual’s perception of the
chapter.
Manford Kuhn
divides the time line of sym-
bolic interactionism into
two major
The
the oral tradition,
first,
They maintained
their social situation.
— the dramaturgi-
will discuss later in the
which he
calls
environment.
was
result
method
as a research
of
concern was that
this
3
.
—
when the primary foundations
of symbolic interaction developed. Following
During the age of inquiry the years that
followed the publication of Mind, Self, and
two divergent schools began to develop within the arena of symbolic interac-
the early period
posthumous publication of George Herbert
Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society, the second period, which may be termed the age of inquiry,
came to flower 2 Of course, the ideas of symbolic interaction did not emerge overnight from
the mind of a lone thinker. They can be traced
to the early psychology of William James.
the
Society
—
The original formulations of Mead
were not altogether consistent, leaving room
for divergent interpretation and extension. As a
result the Chicago and Iowa schools developed.
The Chicago School, led primarily by Herbert
Blumer, continued the humanistic tradition
begun by Mead. Blumer above all believes that
the study of humans cannot be conducted in the
same manner as the study of things. The goals
of the researcher must be to empathize with the
subject, to enter the subject’s realm of experience, and to attempt to understand the value of
the person as an individual. Blumer and his
followers avoid quantitative and scientific aptionism.
.
The primary
A
these early interactionists favored case histories
portions.
interactionists in the early tradi-
tion were Charles Cooley, John Dewey, I. A.
Thomas, and George Herbert Mead. Before
Mead’s ideas on communication were pub-
found life
and sustenance primarily through oral transmission, especially in Mead’s classroom. Although Mead did not publish his ideas during
his lifetime, he is considered the prime mover
of symbolic interactionism.
During this early Meadian period, the important ideas of the theory were developed.
Mead and other interactionists departed from
earlier sociological perspectives that had distinguished between the person and the society.
Mead viewed individuals and society as inseparable and interdependent. Early interactionism
stressed both the importance of social development and innate biological factors as well. Further, the early symbolic interactionists were not
as concerned with how people communicated
as they were with the impact of this communication on society and individuals. Above all, the
early interactionists stressed the role of the
shared meaning of symbols as the binding factor in society. The early theorists were strongly
concerned with studying people in relation to
lished, the interactionist perspective
proaches to studying
stress
life
histories,
studies, diaries, letters,
views.
Blumer
human
behavior.
They
autobiographies, case
and nondirective inter-
particularly stresses the
impor-
tance of participant observation in the study of
communication. Further, the Chicago tradition
sees people as creative, innovative, and free to
define each situation in individual and unpredictable ways. Self and society are viewed as
process,
not structure; to freeze the process
would be to
lose the essence
of person-society
relationships.
The Iowa School
proach to
i
fs
more scientific apstudying interaction. Manford Kuhn,
takes a
leader, believes that interactionist concepts
can be operationalized. While
Kuhn
admits the
process nature of behavior, he advocates that
teraction
3. Bernard N. Meltzer and John W. Petras, “The Chicago
and Iowa Schools of Symbolic Interactionism," in Human
Nature and Collective behavior, ed. Tamotsu Shibutani (En-
Sociological Quarterly 5 (1964): 61-84.
glewood
2.
Manford H. Kuhn, “Major Trends in Symbolic InTheory in the Past Twenty-Five Years,” The
46
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970).
—
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
the objective structural approach
is
more
All of Mead’s work was collected and edited
death in 1931. As a result his books
appear poorly organized. In fact, his best-
fruit-
than the “soft” methods employed by
Blumer. As we will see later in the chapter,
Kuhn is responsible for one of the primary measurement techniques used in symbolic interacful
after his
known work,
lected
Mind,
Self,
from students’
and Society, was col-
class notes.
The Phi-
tion research. 4
losophy of the Present, published in 1932,
Largely because of the basic split that grew
out of the attempt to resolve ambiguities left by
group of lectures on the philosophy of history.
Mind, Self, and Society, the “bible” of symbolic
interactionism, followed in 1934. Movements of
Mead,
a
number of
since about 1940.
tributaries have formed
lists six major subareas:
group theory, social per-
Kuhn
role theory, reference
Thought
Whether all of the theorists in these subareas
would pledge allegiance to symbolic interactionism remains to be seen. All of these areas
likely have been influenced by the writings of
the major symbolic interactionists. In this chapter we will discuss Mead, Blumer, Kuhn, and
is
Burke.
social act
which nearly
Foundations: George Herbert Mead
Although it would be a mistake to attribute all
of the basic ideas behind symbolic interac-
processes
the primary generator of
movement. 6 Like nearly every
their thinking
rehearsal,
form
Pragmatists such as
Kuhn, “Major Trends.”
6.
Mead’s primary work
Mind,
Self,
Press, 1934).
built
upon one
weighing of alternatives in one’s
In its most basic
a social act involves a three-part relation-
from one
individual, a
response to that gesture by another (covertly or
and
overtly),
a result
of the
which
is perceived or imagined by both parties. In a holdup,
act,
for example, the robber indicates to the victim
these predecessors.
Ibid.
complete unit of
and are
ship: an initial gesture
in
5.
a
head, and consummation.
toward the evolutionary perspec-
4.
is
perception and assignment of meaning, covert
turned
pull together ideas
and sociology
act
another in hierarchical form throughout a lifetime. Acts begin with an impulse; they involve
Mead attempted to
from biology, psychology,
viewing the person as an evolutionary being. Yet, in fundamental ways
Mead departed from and added to the work of
tive.
The
plan. Acts interrelate
theorist,
product of his time, following
others in the predominant thought of the day.
Following Darwin’s theory of biological evolua
tion, philosophers in related disciplines
an umbrella concept under
other psychological and social
is
all
fall.
conduct, a gestalt, that cannot be analyzed into
specific subparts. An act may be short, such as
tying a shoe, or it may be the fulfillment of a life
tionism to a single person, George Herbert
the
19th Century, lectures in the his-
in the
the notion that people are actors, not reactors.
The
Mead was
a
tory of ideas, followed in 1936. In 1938 Philosophy of the Act was published.
The three cardinal concepts in Mead’s
theory, captured in the title of his best-known
work, are society, self, and mind. These
categories are not distinct, however. Rather,
they are different aspects of the same general
process, the social act. Basic to Mead’s thought
ception and person perception, self-theory,
interpersonal theory, and language and culture. 5
Mead was no doubt
is
what is intended. The victim responds by giving money, and in the initial gesture and
response, the defined result
in
symbolic interactionism
is
(a
holdup) has
occurred.
and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago
For outstanding secondary sources on Mead,
With
mind, let us look more
closely at the first facet of Meadian analysis
society. Society, or group life, is a cluster of
cooperative behaviors on the part of society’s
members. Lower animals have societies too,
Bernard N. Meltzer, “Mead’s Social Psychology,” in
Symbolic Interaction, ed. Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer
see
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972), pp. 4-22; and Charles
Morris, “George H. Mead as Social Psychologist and Social
Philosopher,” in Mind, Self, and Society, “Introduction.”
47
this outline in
GENERAL THEORIES
but they differ from
human
mental ways. Animal
societies,
the bee, are based
society in funda-
such
on biological
are physiologically determined.
as those
tion (to strike him).
of
assigns
distinguishes
Human
human
is
it,
then, that
trates the responsive, adaptive,
process of figuring
predictable,
may
Or
a
dog
will
growl and
lift
minology
significant
meaning
lip
No
a
In
Mead’s
gesture with shared meaning
teris
a
symbol. In short, society arises in the
significant
symbols of the group. Because of the
ability to vocalize
symbols,
we literally
can hear
ourselves and thus can respond to the
others respond to us.
like to receive
our
We
own
self,
as
can imagine what
it is
we
can
messages, and
empathize with the listener and take the listener’s role, mentally completing the other’s
response.
programmed,
the upper
possess shared meaning
for the individuals in society.
This interplay between responding to others
and responding to self is an important concept
For example, a mother
cluck and her chicks will run to her.
encountering another hostile dog.
cooperative na-
This idea of society as a series of cooperative,
symbol-using interactions has another aspect.
The symbols used must
instinctive responses.
hen
was
of conscious, symbol-using behavior. If
our two characters had been dogs and one had
encroached on the other’s territory, the outcome would have been more predictable.
of “feeling out” the other person is
assessing what that person will do next. Thus
cooperation consists of “reading” the other person’s actions and intentions and responding in
an appropriate way. Such cooperation is the
heart of interpersonal communication. This notion of mutual responding with the use of language makes symbolic interactionism a vital
approach to communication theory.
Animals may communicate in elementary
ways, but symbol-using behavior is what distinguishes human communication. Subhuman
species are said to go through a conversation of
gestures. These gestures, however, are only sigelicit
own
It
ture
ture, part
they
his
me.
and painful, experience. Of course, this
example is of a simple social act, but it illus-
out what actions one will undertake in the fu-
nals, for
hit
rassing,
the intentions of the other communicator. Since
a
interprets the symbols,
them, and plans
“Oh, don’t
an accident.” His adaptation prevents an embar-
a result an
cooperative behavior?
is
He
As
cooperation requires understanding
“minding” or thinking
to
responds,
reply.
animal society behaves in predictable, stable,
and unchanging ways. What
meaning
He
necessity; they
in
when
Mead’s theory, and it provides an excelsecond member of the
lent transition to the
internal
troika
— the
self.
To
state that a
person has a self
present in these acts for the animals
implies that the individual can act toward self as
Animals do not assign conscious
meaning to gestures; they do not “think
through” their responses. The signal type of
communication in animals takes place quickly,
without interruption. Humans, on the other
hand, use symbols in their communication.
People consciously conduct a process of mental
manipulation, delaying of response, and assigning meaning to the gestures of the other. The
symbol is interpreted by the receiver. Assume for
a moment that two men are sitting next to one
toward others. A person may react favorably to
the self and feel pride, happiness, encouragement; or one may become angry or disgusted
with the self. The primary way that a person
comes to see self as others see it (possess a
self-concept) is through role taking. Of course,
this act would not be possible without language
(significant symbols), for through language the
child learns the responses, intentions, and
definitions of others.
Mead describes two explicit phases of selfdevelopment and an initial implicit phase. The
7
first stage is the preparatory stage
Here the infant imitates others by mirroring. The baby
is
in question.
another
picks
at
a bar.
The
first
back, and says,
man
accidentally
The other man is
draws his arm
.” The first man
“Why you.
up the wrong
drink.
incensed; he tightens his
sees the gesture;
.
fist,
.
.
not Mead's. It is supplied by Meltzer in
“The Chicago and Iowa Schools.”
7.
he perceives the other’s inten-
48
This label
is
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
may
pick up the paper, or put on daddy’s shoes,
or stab
of meat with
at a piece
a fork.
adaptive behavior and the I to explain creative,
This phase
unpredictable impulses within the person.
The
purely preliminary, in which the child does
not possess meanings for the acts imitated. Lais
the play stage
self,
or the ability to act toward the
The
self,
by lower
creates a situation not encountered
the child literally plays the
fighter or
symbols
to respond to oneself leads to the possibility of
inner experience and thought that may or may
nurse, the child empathizes with the definitions
not be consummated in overt conduct. This
ter, in
role
,
animals.
of significant others in the environment. In
playing mother and father or
Mead
of these others.
describes
fire
how
a child in
latter idea constitutes the third part
the play stage will pretend to be another person
and
is
will act
toward
really oneself.
that each role
The
is
play stage
theory
who
hypothetical receiver
a
taken separately,
much
as
an
crucial to
In the
game
individual responds in a generalized
eral others
simultaneously.
Mead
life,
for
it is
part of every act.
hesitating (postponing
meaning to the stimuli. Mind often arises
around problem situations in which the individual must think through future actions. The
stage the
way
as
self, is
overt action) while one consciously assigns
maintained, and the child does not develop a
self.
human
“Minding” involves
It is marked
by disorganization and sporadic movement
from one role to another. No unitary viewpoint
singular concept of
which develops along with the
ability,
actor playing out prescribed parts.
is
of Mead’s
— the mind. The mind can be defined
the process of interacting with oneself. This
sequential in
is
ability to use significant
person imagines various outcomes, selecting
to sev-
and testing possible alternative actions.
The reason that mind is important for
uses the anal-
ogy of the baseball game, in which each player
must envision simultaneously all nine roles and
adapt accordingly. At this stage the person must
is
that
Mead
provides the rationale for seeing per-
it
generalize a composite role of all others’ defini-
sons as actors rather than reactors. Human
beings literally construct the act before they
tions of self.
consummate
The concept of the generalized other is one of
Mead’s main contributions. The generalized
other is the unified role from which the individual sees the self. It is our individual perception of the overall way that others see us. The
self-concept is unified and organized through
internalization of this generalized other. Your
generalized other is your concept of how others
in general perceive you. You have learned this
self-picture from years of symbolic interaction
with other people in your life.
controlled before they are enacted.
The
self has
two
facets,
sential function in the
is
the
being’s
life.
The
tion
act
vides direction and guidance.
Mead
rat in
trial
and
reflection before the person ever begins
Normally,
in the
bombarded by
human
animal world the organism
stimuli
from
the environment,
the organism
life
makes
objects
out of the stimuli. Because people possess
significant symbols that allow them to name
person can transform mere
do not exist
from people. The object is always defined
by the individual in terms of the kinds of acts
that a person might make toward the object. A
pencil is a pencil if I can write with it. A sea-
their concepts, the
stimuli into real objects. Objects
/
apart
Every
begins with an impulse from the I and
the driving force in action, while the
and
but in
The me is the
made up of the organized and
quickly becomes controlled by the me.
beings this
to act.
is
predictable part of the person.
consistent patterns shared with others.
The
a trial-and-error pro-
human
error can take place covertly through imagina-
the impulsive, unorganized, undirected, un-
generalized other,
Responses can be designed and
whereas in
cess,
each serving an es-
human
it.
maze goes through
scape
The / is
me pro-
is
a
seascape
bottle of bourbon
drinking
it,
when
is
I
value looking
a liquor
or not drinking
when
it.
I
at
it.
A
conceive of
Objects become
the objects they are through the individual’s
uses the
concept of me to explain socially acceptable and
symbolic minding process;
49
when
the individual
GENERAL THEORIES
envisions
new
or different actions toward an
object, the object
sees the person as a
organism with
biologically advanced
capable of rational thought.
and
becomes an object to
nificant gestures
the self as others see
Through
it.
the things he encounters.” 11
As we
sig-
one
is,
The person internalizes
and behaves consistently
preparation for interaction with others.
Herbert Blumer undoubtedly was Mead’s foreapostle. In fact,
as
,
Blumer coined the term
Mead him-
an expression
never used. Blumer refers to
somewhat
“a
how
caught on.” 8
this
label
barbaric neologism that
human beings.
What is distinctive about
other
I
The term someAlthough Blumer published
coined in an offhand way.
.
.
.
view of meaning
throughout his career, not until his 1969
publication of Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective
and Method did a unified view of his thought
articles
become
available. 9 In his first chapter
clearly states his debt to
to
Mead and
his
interpretation.
person
object.
dealing explicitly with
his writing
on symbolic
in-
“Human
be-
(1)
internal conversaton:
“The
actor
you will recall,
same as Mead’s concept of mind.
Blumer stresses the importance of this definition of meaning for the symbolic interactionist
perspective. Blumer’s three premises on meaning form the skeleton for his thought, and the
meat is provided by what he calls “root images.” The root images cover the topics of
group
basis
jects,
life,
social interaction, the nature
persons as actors, the nature of
of ob-
human
and interlinkages of individual actions in
society. Let us discuss each of these in turn.
Blumer reiterates Mead’s view that society
arises from individual interactions. No human
action,
8. Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and
Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 1.
9.
This process of handling meanings
the
is
of the meanings that the things have for them”; (2) “the
meaning of such things is derived from, or
arises out of, the social interaction that one has
on the
on conscious
meaning for the
when
tion.” 12 This internal process, as
many
concerned.” 10
Blumer begins
the interactionist
stress
suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in light of the situation in
which he is placed and the direction of his ac-
were only implicit in the
10.
thought of Mead and others, and covering
critical topics with which they were not
teraction with three premises:
its
selects, checks,
crucial matters that
ings act toward things
is
object has
the point
at
becomes an
devotion
Blumer’s formulations are consistent with those
of his mentor, but he does not merely repeat
Mead: “I have been compelled to develop my
version,
An
the individual
consciously thinks about or interprets the
Blumer
furthering the interactionist perspective.
own
of
number
meaning takes a central role in the social process
itself. Meaning is a product of social life. Whatever meaning a person possesses for a thing is
the result of interaction with others about the
object being defined. A person has no meaning
for something apart from the interaction with
Herbert Blumer and the Chicago School
self
critical
a
of behavioral science undercut the importance
of the concept of meaning. Many theories ignore meaning completely, and others place it in
the general subordinate category of antecedent
factors. In symbolic interactionism, though,
son plans and rehearses symbolic behavior in
most
Blumer has been
on
of counts, the first of which is the treatment of
meaning. Blumer shows how most theories
sees
the process of mind, the per-
symbolic interactionism
will see,
the mainstream of social science
the person
role taking,
oneself; that
used by the person in dealing with
tive process
brain
a
Through
it.
this general self-view
with
with one’s fellows”; (3) “these meanings are
handled in, and modified through, an interpre-
changed.
is
summary Mead
In
Ibid.
1 1
.
Ibid., p. 2.
Ibid.
12.
Ibid., p. 5.
50
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
action
stands apart from interaction. Nearly all
is and does is formed in the proof interacting symbolically with others.
Hence it is incorrect to congroup conduct as independent from the
in individual acts.
that a person
sider
cess
individual actions of the participants:
Society results from each person’s coordinating
one’s
ticipants
own
conduct with that of others. Thus
both group life and individual conduct are
shaped through the ongoing process of symtreats objects in essentially the
police officer in a ghetto
may mean
something different
to the citizens of that area
than a police officer means to the inhabitants of
a
posh
residential area because
interactions
among
of the different
the residents of these
matter
how
it is still
is
solid a
group action apthat
mately
in diverse
ways, but contrary to popular
network or an institu-
sociological thinking, “a
tion does not function automatically because of
some inner dynamics or system requirements: it
functions because people at different points do
something, and what they do
is
group action and takes steps to define it. What
seen as societal or group action is merely the
to act .” 16
Blumer’s third observation ties together the
two. With an understanding that groups in
based in individual symbolic in-
is
first
individuals fitting
a society are
one another. A joint action of a
group of people consists of an interlinkage of
teraction,
their separate actions,
joint action that occurs. Blumer’s
their actions to
but group action
is
actions.
not
uals’
a
Such
is
we may come
based
Ibid., p. 14.
51
to realize that individ-
backgrounds are important
repetitiously described,
and church
worship are joint actions. Group action
of how
a result
they define the situation in which they are called
on
the importance of
institutions as marriage, trade, war,
life
may be connected through complicated networks. Distant actors may be interlinked ulti-
sponds to the play of factors on or through it,
the human being is seen as an organism that has
to deal with what it notes .” 13
13. One of the primary
areas in which Blumer
extends Mead’s thinking is group or societal
mere summation of the individual
human
rooted in individual
the social process in group
and upholds the rules, not the rules that
create and uphold group life .” 15
The second observation Blumer makes
about groups is the pervasive and extended nature of some interlinkages. Individual actions
cause they possess a self and, to reiterate Mead,
an individual has the ability to act toward self as
many
No
creates
an object. This capacity to act implies that the
individual can deal with problem situations:
“Instead of being merely an organism that re-
extended process of
tion.
selves: “It
Blumer’s treatment of action is essentially
the same as Mead’s. Blumer sees persons as
actors, not reactors. People are able to act be-
Blumer recognizes
of highly recurrent and stable patterns.
These group actions possess common and preestablished meanings in a society. Because of
the high frequency of such patterns, scholars
have tended to treat them as structures or entities. Blumer warns us not to forget that new
situations present problems requiring adjustment and redefinition. Even in highly repetitious group patterns nothing is permanent.
Each case must begin anew with individual acpears to be,
two
vastly different geographical areas.
action.
acts
three basic observations
consists
meaning through symbolic interaction. Objects
may hold different meanings for different
people, depending on the nature of others’ actions toward the person regarding the defined
A
par-
about linkages. First, he notes that the largest
portion of group action in an advanced society
same
way as does Mead. For Blumer objects are of
three types: physical (things), social (people),
and abstract (ideas). Objects come to have
object.
“The
have to guide their respective
Blumer makes
bolic interaction.
Blumer
still
by forming and using meanings .” 14
14.
Ibid., p. 17.
15.
Ibid., p. 19.
16.
Ibid.
is
in the
kind of
main
that societal
point,
groups
GENERAL THEORIES
and institutions are not structures all their own.
First and foremost they are interlinkages of individual symbolic interactions.
Another broad area in which Blumer goes
beyond Mead is methodology. Since methodology is the primary, and dramatic, difference between the Chicago and Iowa schools,
prior picture of
what the
ascertain patterns
data collected.
how vital this topic is to him.
Although Mead does not emphasize method,
findings
out realizing
is captured in its method.
Blumer’s opinions on this topic are strong.
According to Blumer, the most basic foun-
world: “This empirical world must forever
It is
of relationship among the
interpretation of the
Fifth,
necessary.
departure and the point of return in the case of
character; the construction
empirical science .” 17 However,
cal
Consistent with symbolic interac-
tionist perspective, reality exists
human
only through
experience. In Blumer’s words, “It
is
of a characof the ‘world of reality’ that is not cast
the form of human imagery .” 18
impossible to
cite a single instance
terization
in
In this empirical context are
dangers for research.
The
first is
two
potential
.
the conception
world is immutable
and exists to be “discovered” by science. Another related danger is the belief that reality is
best cast in terms of physics. Both conceptions
already have played havoc with social science
research: “To force all of the empirical world to
fit a scheme that has been devised for a given
segment of that world is philosophical doctrinizing and does not represent the approach of
that reality in the empirical
These approaches
ideal
fail as
empirical validation.
aspects. First, the researcher
.
methods use four
of research
(d)
Ibid., p. 22.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid., p. 23.
21. Ibid.
52
Ibid., pp.
26-27.
for
in replication
on the testing of
employing so-called oper-
ational procedures .” 21
18.
methods
are “(a) adhering to
engaging
studies, (c) relying
hypotheses, and
19.
realistic
They
a scientific protocol, (b)
the empirical world. Research cannot be approached on abstract levels that do not include a
17.
.
generalized procedures, according to Blumer.
form involves six major
must possess and
make use of some framework or model of
its
as
.
All of these traditional
genuine empirical science .” 19
Inquiry in
as
of logical and mathematimodels, all too frequently guided by the criterion
of elegance; the elaboration of formal schemes on
how to construct concepts and theories; valiant application of imported schemes, such as input-output
analysis, systems analysis, and stochastic analysis;
studious conformity to the canons of research design;
and the promotion of a particular procedure, such as
survey research, as the method of scientific study. I
marvel at the supreme confidence with which these
preoccupations are advanced as the stuff of methodology. Many of these preoccupations
are
grossly inadequate on the simple ground that they
deal with only a limited aspect of the full act of
scientific inquiry, ignoring such matters as premises,
problems, concepts, and so on. More serious is their
almost universal failure to face the task of outlining
the principles of how schemes, problems, data, connections, concepts, and interpretations are to be constructed in the light of the nature of the empirical
world under study 20
not
underestimate the role of the observer in empirical testing.
the investigator
the following: the devising and use of sophisticated
research techniques, usually of an advanced statistical
the point of
we must
Sixth,
The overwhelming bulk of what passes today
methodology is made up of such preoccupations
dation for behavioral science must be the empir-
be the central point of concern.
is
must conceptualize what has been discovered.
Blumer levels a biting criticism of the
mainstream of social science method in the following words:
sym-
bolic interactionism
ical
like.
is
can be obtained. Fourth, the researcher needs to
reviewing Blumer’s ideas on method is particuimportant. One cannot read Blumer with-
that the very nature of
world
framed as problems. Third, the kind of data to
be sought must be determined and a realistic
appraisal made of the ways in which that data
larly
Blumer maintains
real
Second, the researcher needs to ask questions
about the world, which eventually must be
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
If the usual means of research are inadequate,
what does Blumer propose as an alternative?
Blumer maintains that researchers must de-
be Hickman and Kuhn’s Individuals, Groups, and
Economic Behavior, published in 1956. 22 (For an
velop firsthand participative knowledge of the
excellent short synthesis see Charles Tucker’s
phenomena
investigated.
participative
knowledge
a
The
published
world
is
like.
call
critique. 23 )
it is
Kuhn’s theoretical premises are consistent
with Mead’s thought. KuhriVronceives of the
basis of all action as symbolic interaction. The
child is socialized through interaction with
others in the society into which he or she is
born. The person has meaning for and thereby
Blumer
calls exploration. Exscanning technique
wherein the investigator uses any ethical
method of getting information. In the explor-
ploration
a
is
flexible
deals with objects in the
environment through
the naming of an
is a way of
conveying the object’s meaning in communicable terms. Kuhn agrees with his colleagues
social interaction.
ing stage the investigator should move from
technique to technique in a flexible and com-
object
fortable manner in order to get a broad picture
of the area being investigated. Techniques may
range from direct observation to interviewing,
from listening in on conversations to surveying
life histories,
from reading
To Kuhn
important, for naming
active planner.
He
is
not a passive reactor but an
reinforces the
view
that indi-
viduals undertake self-conversations as part of
the process of acting. Kuhn also reiterates the
letters
importance of language in thinking and communicating.
Like Mead and Blumer Kuhn discusses the
importance of objects in the actor’s world. The
object can be any aspect of the person’s reality: a
more
focused. After ascertaining the
general nature of the phenomenon, the researcher begins inspection. The primary differis
is
that the individual
and diaries to
consulting public records. No formal guidelines
are followed, and whatever procedures are used
should be adapted to the situation. The second
stage
may
may
scientist
This sort of method consists of
stage
closest
“soft,” but actually
rigorous process of finding out what the real
two stages.
The first
work. The
a truly unified
thing, a quality, an event, or a state of affairs.
ence between exploration and inspection is
depth and focus. Inspection is “an intensive focused examination,” according to Blumer. This
The only requirement
examination must be done in the context of the
area under investigation.
the totality of their social objects.
an object for a person
represent
it
for
is
something to become
that the person
name
symbolically. Reality for persons
Kuhn
with other interactionists that meaning
it,
is
agrees
is
so-
Meaning is assigned to an object
from group norms regulating how people deal
cially derived.
Manford Kuhn and the Iowa School
Manford Kuhn and his students, while maintaining basic interactionist principles, take two
new steps not previously seen in the old-line
interactionist theory. The first is to make the
interactionist concept of self more concrete; the
with the object in question.
A second concept important to Kuhn is the
A plan of action is a person’s total
behavior pattern toward a given object, includ-
plan of action.
ing whether to seek or avoid
second, which makes the first possible, is the
use of quantitative research. In this latter area
is
thought to behave (since
the person will behave
Iowa and Chicago schools part company.
Blumer strongly criticizes the trend in the bethe
it,
this
feelings about the object as
titudes constitute a subset
havioral sciences to operationalize;
22.
a
Groups, and Economic Behavior
Kuhn makes
point to do just that! As a result Kuhn’s work
moves more toward microscopic analysis than
how
it
the object
determines
toward the
is
object),
how
and
defined. At-
of the plan of action.
C. A. Hickman and Manford Kuhn, Individuals,
(New
York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1956).
23.
does the traditional Chicago approach.
Like many of the interactionists, Kuhn never
Charles Tucker,
“Some Methodological Problems of
Kuhn’s Self Theory,” The
53
Sociological Quarterly 7 (1966),
GENERAL THEORIES
attitude indicates
“There are twenty numbered blanks on the
page below. Please write twenty answers to the
toward which action will be directed as
well as the evaluation of the object. Because
attitudes are verbal statements, they can be ob-
Just give twenty different answers to this question. Answer as if you were giving the answers
served and measured.
to yourself, not to
Attitudes are verbal statements that act as blueprints for one’s behavior.
The
the end
A
third concept important to
Kuhn
is
orientational other. Orientational others are
who
have been particularly
son’s
life.
They
simple question,
those
influential in a per-
whom the individual is emo-
a different aspect of self. Here
Kuhn’s primary theoretical formulations.
and psychologically committed. Second, they are the ones who provide the person
with general vocabulary, central concepts, and
method tapping
categories. Third, they provide the individual
ual’s plans
tionally
with the basic distinction between
self
are
First, the
self-conception
and
Fourth, the orientational others’
communications continually sustain the
indi-
Such self-conceptions
vidual’s self-concept. Orientational others
may
for they act as one’s
that the individual
comes
to see the
seen as the individ-
are anchoring attitudes,
most
common
frame of
reference for judging other objects. All subse-
be in the present or past, they may be present or
absent. The important idea behind the concept
is
is
of action toward the self as an object.
This self-concept consists of the individual’s
identities (roles and statuses), interests and aversions, goals, ideologies, and self-evaluations.
others, including one’s perceived role differ-
entiation.
I?” in the blanks.
somebody else. Write the
answers in the order that they occur to you.
Don’t worry about logic or ‘importance.’ Go
along fairly fast, for time is limited .” 25
A number of potential ways are available to
analyze the responses from this test, with each
the
possess four qualities. First,
they are people to
“Who am
quent plans of action stem primarily from the
world
self-concept.
Two
major aspects of the
self
may
be termed
through interaction with particular other persons who have touched one’s life in important
the ordering variable and the locus variable.
ways.
The
— the
sible for a
technique
example,
test.
if the
person
lists
“Baptist” a great
The
locus
variable
developing this procedure is stated succinctly:
“If as we suppose, human behavior is organized
and directed, and if, as we further suppose, the
affiliation.
organization and direction are supplied by the
idiosyncratic, subjective qualities.
it
which the subject
may
A
consists
A
would be confronted with twenty blank spaces
preceded by the following simple instructions:
Manford Kuhn and Thomas McPartland, “An EmpiriInvestigation of Self-Attitudes,” American Sociological
tends to
place statements in one of
two
categories.
may be said to be consensual if it
of a discrete group or class identification, such as student, girl, husband, Baptist,
from Chicago, premed, daughter, oldest child,
studying engineering. Other statements are not
descriptions of commonly agreed-on cate-
subject taking the “twenty-statements” test
Review 19 (1954),
the extent to
way
In scoring the self-attitude test, the analyst
ought to
cal
is
in a general
identify with consensual groupings rather than
be of crucial significance to social psychology to
24
be able to identify and measure self-attitudes .”
24.
may
conclude that the person identifies more readily
with religious affiliation than with family
His rationale for
individual’s attitudes toward himself,
ob-
by the
deal higher than “father,” the researcher
Kuhn is primarily responknown as the “twenty-
statements” self-attitudes
It is
subject in the “twenty-statements” task. For
self,
teractionist thinking.
the relative salience of
servable in the order of statements listed
self.
revolve around
is
identifications the individual possesses.
we come
to Kuhn’s most important
Kuhn’s theory and method
and it is in this area that
Kuhn most dramatically extends symbolic inFinally,
concept
ordering variable
25.
p. 68.
54
statement
Ibid., p. 69.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
gories. Examples of subconsensual responses are
happy, bored, pretty, good student, too heavy,
good
The number of
wife, interesting.
ments
in the consensual
group
is
quences that block achievement of interaction
By studying these
attempt to isolate general principles
of symbolic interaction. Such principles may
objectives are accounted for.
areas, they
state-
the individ-
ual’s locus score.
The
form the
idea of locus
important to Kuhn:
“Persons vary over a rather wide range in the
relative volume of consensual and subconsen-
components
sual
in their self-conceptions.
our empirical investigation
has given the greatest advance over the purely
deductive and more or less literary formulations
of George Herbert Mead.” 26
The
interactionism
is distinguished by the use of the
dramatic metaphor. The dramaturgists see people as actors on a metaphorical stage playing
out roles in interaction with others. Several
between the Chicago and Iowa
work of Kuhn
become so estranged from
mainstream symbolic interactionism that it has
and
conflict
is
among
support
basic tenets
those
who
sense,
lacks the unity required to call
a
of the movement. Kuhn’s methods
result a
group of followers,
about
“new” Iowa
School.
One of its leaders,
is
more appropriate
the use of the TST
test] and allied instruments.
There was an increasing awareness that this set
of procedures was not generating the data re-
28.
with
is
quired for serious testing, revision, and elaboration of the theory. Some turned to naturalistic
.
Some gave up
it
most
He has written widely in many areas of
thought from creative writing, to literary and
rhetorical criticism, to social psychology, to
linguistic
unanticipated conse-
Also,
unlike most other
This work is summarized in Carl J. Couch and Robert
Hintz, eds., Constructing Social Life (Champaign: Stipes
Publishing Co., 1975); and Clark McPhail, “Toward a
Couch, “Symbolic Interaction and Generic
Sociological Principles” (Paper presented at the
Interaction, Boston, 1979), p. 9.
analysis.
symbolic interactionists, Burke’s concepts are
work of Mead and the
not derived from the
26. Ibid., p. 76.
27. Carl J.
movement,
In fact, unlike
pline.
began studying the
by using videotaped sequences. They have produced research on how interaction begins (openings)
and ends (closings), how disagreements are
how
movement.
identified
his associates
and
the symbolic interactionist
of the symbolic interactionists, Burke has not
with any particular academic disci-
the search;
structure of coordinated behavior
negotiated,
to treat his theory at length in
doubtful that he would align himself exclu-
sively with the
others foundered.” 27
Couch and
dis-
Part IV on contextual theories.) The other two
primary dramaturgical interactionists, who
have taken different approaches from Goffman,
are Kenneth Burke and his advocate in the field
of sociology, Hugh Duncan.
Although Burke’s concepts are consistent
Carl
[twenty-statements
.
is
microscopic and takes a different turn
interactionists. (Although Goffman
known as a symbolic interactionist, it seems
from other
Couch, describes the situation: “By the mid1960s most of us affiliated with Kuhn had be-
.
The
individuals present themselves to
tinctly
come disenchanted with
observation.
how
others in rolelike behavior. His theory
who
believe in both the central ideas of symbolic
interactionism and the expressed need to examine social life in concrete ways, has emerged as
the
Three
a school.
Erving Goffman, has written extensively
first,
simply are not adequate for investigating probehavior, an essential element of interac-
As
it
dramaturgists seem to lead the movement.
espouse the
cessual
tion.
might be termed dramaturgical in this
but dramaturgical theory in actuality
theorists
apparent. In fact, the
his associates has
lost its
grounded theory of sym-
The Dramatism of Kenneth Burke
The so-called dramaturgical school of symbolic
It is
in this finding that
schools
basis for a
bolic interaction in the future. 28
is
Theory of Collective Behavior” (Paper presented at the
Symposium on Symbolic Interaction, Columbia, South
Symposium
on Symbolic
Carolina, 1978).
55
GENERAL THEORIES
other early sociologists.
Some of his most im-
Burke
with the publication of Mead’s ideas. On the
other hand, it would be incorrect to exclude
Burke from the mainstream of symbolic interactionist thought, for while he has maintained his independence, his theory
is
sees the act as the basic concept in
dramatism. His view of
portant works, in fact, appeared concurrently
sistent
human
action
is
con-
with that of Mead, Blumer, and Kuhn.
Specifically,
Burke distinguishes between
action
and motion. All objects and animals in the universe can be said to possess motion, but only
human beings have action. Action consists of
highly
consistent with the others presented in this
purposeful, voluntary behaviors of individuals.
chapter.
Dramatism is the study of action in this sense;
the study of motion is mechanism. Burke be-
Kenneth Burke is no doubt a giant among
symbol theorists. He has written profusely over
a period of fifty years, and his theory is the
most comprehensive of all the interactionists.
Hugh Duncan
wrote, “It
may
people
be said without
to
1966. 30 Unfortunately,
clarity
Burke
of style. His theory
is
is
not
scattered
however, the coherence and unity of the theory
become apparent. Fortunately, a number of
Hugh Duncan, “Communication
it.
With
this perspective let
verbal elements as well. Especially intriguing
Burke is the notion that a person can symOne can talk about speech
and can write about words. This second-level
activity is a distinguishing characteristic of
for
bolize symbols.
in Society,” Arts in
symbol
Society 3 (1964), 105.
major works include Counter-Statement
use.
In addition
(New
York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1931); Permanence and
Change (New York: New Republic, 1935); Attitudes toward
History (New York: New Republic, 1937); The Philosophy of
Literary Form (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University,
1941); A Grammar of Motives (1945) and A Rhetoric of Motives
(1950)
all
behavior cannot be properly
—
scholars have provided written interpretations
of Burke’s ideas.31 In surveying Burke’s communication theory, we will begin with a summary of his concept of dramatism; then we will
turn to his central concepts of humanity, language, and communication; and finally we will
sketch Burke’s method.
30. Burke’s
in
Burke views the individual as a biological
and neurological being, who possesses all of
the animalistic characteristics of lower species.
Consistent with Mead, Burke distinguishes
humans by their symbol-using behavior, the
ability to act. People are symbol-creating,
symbol-using, and symbol-misusing animals.
They create symbols to name things and situations; they use symbols for communication;
and they often abuse symbols
misuse them to
their disadvantage. Burke’s view of symbols is
broad, including an array of linguistic and non-
and often appears ambiguous. When a scholar
takes the time necessary to know Burke’s work,
29.
human
us look at Burke’s seminal ideas.
echoing something said by Burke.” 29 Burke
noted for
needed
understood without
has published eight major books spanning from
1931
is
plines, for
exaggeration that anyone writing today on
communication, however ‘original’ he may be,
is
view of
of the “human” disci-
lieves that a dramatistic (teleological)
creators.
and
arate
sees people as instrument
create a variety of mechanical
lower animals, septheir natural condition. People
through the symbolic screen. For
them from
filter reality
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall); A Rhetoric of
Beacon Press, 1961); Language as Symbolic
Burke
They
social tools that, unlike
is, but for humans reality
mediated through symbols. Burke agrees
with Mead that language functions as the vehi-
:
an animal reality just
Religion (Boston:
is
Action (Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California
Press, 1966).
I would like to express my particular appreciation to
friend and colleague Peter Coyne for the continued insights
he has given me on Kenneth Burke. See Peter Coyne,
“Kenneth Burke and the Rhetorical Criticism of Public
Address” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1973).
For a comprehensive overview on Kenneth Burke, see Wil-
31.
cle for action.
Because of the
people to cooperate
social
in their actions,
need for
language
and shapes behavior. Language, as seen
by Burke, is always emotionally loaded. No
word can be affectively neutral. As a result a
person’s attitudes, judgments, and feelings
arises
liam Rueckert, ed., Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969).
56
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
invariably are in that person’s language. Lan-
that
guage is by nature selective and abstract, focusing attention on particular aspects of reality at
trine
the expense of others. While language
nomical,
guage
it
is
formal in that
is
is
fundamentals, or essence of any thing.
Substance must be viewed in holistic terms; it is
eco-
ambiguous. Further, lan-
also
it
not
tends to follow certain
tinct,
overriding consideration for all of
work is his concept of guilt. The term
Burke’s all-purpose
word
mere summation of the parts or aspects of
Each person is dispossessing separate substance. Crucial to
Burke’s theory
Burke’s
guilt is
a
the thing in consideration.
patterns or forms.
An
of substance, or in Burke’s words the docof substance. Substance is the general na-
ture,
is
the understanding that the
two persons always overlap
The overlapping is not perfect,
though, and thus prevents ideal communicasubstances of any
for any feeling
to
of tension within a person: anxiety, embarrassment, self-hatred, disgust, and so forth. For
Burke guilt is a condition caused only in humans by their symbol-using nature. He identifies three interrelated sources of guilt arising
out of language. The first is the negative.
Through language people moralize (animals do
not). They construct a myriad of rules and
some
tion.
extent.
Whatever communication occurs between
is a direct function of their con-
individuals
substantiality
(sharing of
common
substance).
Consubstantiality, or commonality, allows for
necessarily are breaking another, creating guilt.
communication because of the shared meaning it
creates for the symbols used. When Barney and
Joe are relaxing next to the swimming pool on a
warm summer morning, they communicate
with one another in a free and understanding
manner because they share meanings for the
We
language in use. They
proscriptions.
Now,
consistent.
tirely
these rules are never en-
In following one rule,
will see that Burke’s concept
sense
is
nance
guilt
is
guilt.
mans
similar to the idea
(see
Chapter
of guilt in
this
of cognitive disso-
The second
8).
you
substantial.
Bob
reason for
the principle of perfection, or categorical
Swiss restaurant, they
To combine Mead and Burke, a sigsymbol is one that allows for shared
meaning through consubstantiality.
Another important concept of Burke is identification. As generally conceived, identification is the same as consubstantiality, or the sharing of substance. The opposite of identification
of perfection. Then, by their very nature,
they spend their lives striving for whatever degree of this perfection they set for themselves.
nificant
Guilt arises as a result of the discrepancy be-
der,
real
and the
ideal.
A
and
in a
feel frustration
individual.
state
guilt
may
boy
because of their lack of shared meaning with this
People are sensitive to their failings. Huimagine (through language) a
are able to
tween the
con-
are, so to speak,
On the other hand, when Mary
ask a question of a harried bus
third reason for
is the principle of hierarchy. In seeking orpeople structure society in social pyramids
is
or hierarchies (social ratings, social orderings).
This ranking of course, is a symbolic phenome-
Division and the guilt it produces
primary motives for communication.
division.
are the
Through communication,
non. Competitions and divisions result between
classes and groups in the hierarchy, and guilt
results. For Burke guilt is the primary motive
identification
is
in-
creased. In a spiraling fashion as identification
shared meaning increases, thereby
improving understanding. Identification thus
increases,
behind all action and communication: We
communicate to purge our guilt.
In discussing communication Burke uses
can be a means to persuasion or improved
communication or an end in itself. Identifica-
several inseparable terms: persuasion, iden-
or accidental.
tification,
consubstantiality,
communication,
how
these concepts are
and rhetoric. Let us see
integrated in his theory.
The underlying con-
cept behind Burke’s ideas
on communication
tion can be conscious or unconscious, planned
Three overlapping sources of
between people. Material
from goods, possessions,
and things. Idealistic identification results from
ideas, attitudes, feelings, and values. Formal
identification exist
identification results
is
57
.
.
GENERAL THEORIES
from the form or
If two people who
identification results
rangement of the
act.
ar-
proved useful
are
literary
introduced shake hands, the conventional form
of handshaking causes some identification to
take place. Speakers can identify better with
their audiences if they provide a form that is
meaningful to the particular audience.
Before we proceed, let us look at a couple of
cautions. First, identification is not an either-or
occurrence but
Some
matter of degree.
a
con-
merely by
humanness of any two per-
substantiality will always be present
virtue of the shared
sons. Identification can be great or small, and
it
which the
component is
can be increased or decreased by the actions of
in
Second, although iden-
the communicators.
that
when
successful
identification
is
greater
is
interesting
phenomenon
to contradict Burke’s
that
view of
might seem
identification
and
as rhetorical
analysis of speeches,
was
act
The
carried out.
third
the agent, the actor, including
all
known
contributing factors.
than division.
An
— the
about the individual. The agent’s
substance reaches all aspects of his or her being,
history, personality, demeanor, and any other
and division exist side by side between any two persons, communication is
tification
more
such
in areas
criticism
poems, books, and other rhetorical devices.
Burke’s most basic methodological paradigm is the dramatistic pentad Pentad, meaning a
group of five, is in this sense an analytical
framework for the most efficient study of any
act. The first part is the act, what is done by the
actor. It is a view of what the actor played, what
was accomplished. The second part is the scene,
the situation or setting in which the act was
accomplished. It includes a view of the physical
setting as well as the cultural and social milieu
component,
is
the
The
the fourth
agency,
means or
vehicle the agent
uses in carrying out the act.
is
Agency may
in-
that people
clude channels of communication, devices, in-
identify
stitutions,
of lower strata in a hierarchy often
with godlike persons at the top of the
hierarchy, despite tremendous apparent division. This kind of identification can be seen, for
example, in the mass following of a charismatic
leader.
Two
overlapping factors explain
its
purpose
strive for.
oc-
the perfection they themselves
Second, the mystery surrounding the
library,
— the
your desk and room, the
sphere of your school, and
phenomenon may
be called identification through
the reason for the act
rhetorical
of the
act.
For example, in writing a paper for your
communication theory course you, the agent,
gather information and present it to the instructor (the act). Your course, your university, your
charismatic person simultaneously tends to hide
the division that exists. This
or messages. Fifth, the
goal, the hoped-for effect or result
currence. First, individuals perceive in others an
embodiment of
is
strategies,
scene; the format
agency.
mystification
In striving for happiness, each person adopts
ing, in
of identification. Strategies are
analogous to Kuhn’s concept of plans of action.
You have
all
a
more
social
atmo-
constitute the
of the paper itself is the
variety of purposes, includ-
likelihood, getting a
good
grade.
certain strategies
They
Criticism of
Although many specific objections have been
raised against symbolic interactionism, for the
most part they can be combined into three
major criticisms 32 First, symbolic interac-
are the tactics for living, the plans for
communicating with another. Burke does not
attempt to outline
all
available strategies for
relating to others, because the
indefinitely long.
makes
One of
would be
list
communi-
cators use to increase their identification.
a
For reviews of specific objections to symbolic interactionism, see Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer,
“Appraisals of Symbolic Interactionism,” in Manis and
Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction, pt. IV, pp. 393-440; Bernard
N. Meltzer, John Petras, and Larry Reynolds, Symbolic
Interactionism: Genesis, Varieties, and Criticism (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975).
32.
(communica-
tive) act is to assess the strategies the
provides
.
the suggestions he
for analyzing a rhetorical
Burke
full-blown methodology for study-
ing rhetorical acts. His method, in
fact,
Symbolic Interactionism
has
58
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
tionism is said to be nonempirical. That is, one
cannot readily translate its concepts into observable, researchable units. Second, it is said to
be overly restrictive in the variables it takes into
account. Critics have charged that
crucial psychological variables
societal variables
on the
it
theses,
of the movement, points out that interactionists
do engage in research, but that their obser-
ignores
it
vations do not cast light
uses
concepts in an inexact, inconsistent way. Let us
look at each of these objections more closely. In
so, we will relate the objections to the
categories for evaluating theory outlined in
The
emerged out of a need for interactionists to do
“serious sociological work.” 34
The second major criticism is that interactionism has either ignored or downplayed im-
2.
major criticism of symbolic interactionism has broad implications. Despite
Blumer’s protestations to the contrary, critics
first
portant explanation variables. Critics say
maintain that in actual practice the researcher
know what to look for in observing
it
leaves out the emotions of the individual
on one
end and societal organization on the other.
These arguments as a whole make clear that
does not
interactionist concepts in real
life. This problem
seems to stem from the vague, intuitive claims
of early interactionists. What is mind, for
example? How can this concept be observed?
We
on the theory’s key
making revision and elaboration
Couch believes this circumstance need
not be so, and the “new” Iowa tradition has
concepts,
difficult.
doing
Chapter
research has been produced.
little
have been unable to
elaborate and expand their thinking. Carl
Couch, a leading proponent (and house critic)
on one end and
other. Third,
and
Interactionist scholars thus
interactionism
cover
already have noted Kuhn’s failure to oper-
is
overly restrictive in scope.
much of social
as
interactionism
life as it
must take
structures as well as individual feelings.
ationalize interactionist concepts
problem
ing up
it
without givassumptions about the process nature
of behavior. Most basically, this criticism
its
casts
To
pretends to do,
into account social
The
is not one merely of scope, of course;
doubt on the validity of the tradition
as well.
questions the appropriateness of symbolic interactionism to lead to a more complete under-
deal with social organization
standing of everyday behavior. As such,
for interactionists. Social organization or struc-
believe
more appropriately
to be
it
losophy, which
events, but
may
social phi-
little
structure
John
activities:
ing]
.
.
.
.
.
eral research
power. 35
.
descriptive case studies and interac-
Somewhat
tionism. 33
As
interactionism
It
of
has been done in the
is
not thought to be adequately
bolic interactionism, although they claim that
has generated few testable hypo34.
in
work
now generally
agree that feelings have been neglected by sym-
this alleged failure,
John Lofland, “Interactionist Imagery and Analytic Interruptus,
less
symbolic
area of emotions. Interactionists
a result
heuristic.
and since about 1965 sevprograms have begun to look at
tionist perspective,
[making] slightly more
[and connect-
imagery,
normally a matter of power, and
have been loath to admit to
power inequality. However, the concept of
power can be investigated from an interac-
“doctrinaire reiteration of the
master’s teachings,
specific the general
is
interactionists
Lofland’s criticism is especially biting. He
claims that interactionists participate in three
main
of symbolic interactionism to
is a major concern
removes individual prerogative, a highly
valued idea in old-style interactionism. Social
concrete con-
for explaining the events.
failure
ture
guide our thinking about
which provides
33.
ceptualization
The
critics
Human
Tamotsu Shibutani (Englewood
Couch, “Symbolic
Interaction.”
of work is discussed in Peter M. Hall, “Structuring Symbolic Interaction: Communication and Power,”
35. This line
Nature and Collective Behavior, ed.
Communication Yearbook 4, ed. Dan Nimmo (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1980), pp. 49-60.
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
in
1970), p. 37.
59
.
GENERAL THEORIES
interactionism
not antithetical to the study of
is
polite or
The
dom,
of symbolic inconcepts are not used
is
consistently.
As
self, role,
that
its
a result
such concepts as
and others are vague. This
is a
I,
me,
confederation of ideas that are
recognizable
.
is a
is
not a unified theory. Rather,
general framework, and as
a valid criticism
we
have seen,
not
a fair picture
Interactionists
of early interactionism,
it
proach
it
main
still
body of research and
is
a
loose
evolving as
a
As
a
theory.
is
not possible. Let us look briefly
at the
theoretical branches of the rules approach,
emphasizing two recent rules theories of communication.
it is
of the movement today.
have not been daunted by
The movement
their critics.
ran-
result discussing rules theory as a unified ap-
has different versions. Therefore, although this
is
at
the result
Unfortunately the rules approach
prob-
lem of both internal validity and parsimony 36
However, we must keep in mind that symbolic
interactionism
to insult, to greet, and so forth. If
would be chaos rather than
communication .” 37
third general criticism
teractionism
how
every symbol user manipulated symbols
feeling or affect.
Despite
its
diversity the rules approach
held together by certain
tions 38
has adjusted and
matured. It is too early to tell what will happen
to symbolic interactionism, although it appears
is
common assump-
Although these are not
.
identical to
the premises of symbolic interactionism, they
interactionism
36.
with and add to the latter
framework. The action principle, which is central to symbolic interactionist thought, generally is considered to be a primary assumption of
the rules approach. Although some human activity is mechanical and determined by uncontrollable factors, the most important behaviors
are considered to be actively initiated by the
individual. People are thought to choose
courses of action within situations to accomplish their intentions. You recall that this
action principle is opposed to the motion principle, in which human behavior is seen as determined by prior causes. Rules theorists agree
that the motion principle, which gives rise to
laws of nature, is appropriate in the science of
teractionism
objects but that
are consistent
grand movement will be replaced by a
of middle-range theories that provide
that the
series
concrete explanations of social behavior consistent
with the general tenets of old-line sym-
bolic interactionism. Rules theory
ise for filling this
shows prom-
gap.
The Rules Approach to Communication
of ideas, two different strands of
thought sometimes are found to be consistent
In the history
with one another, and they converge to the
benefit of both. Each tradition enhances or improves the other. Such is the case with symbolic
and rules theory. Symbolic inus of the importance of inmeaning in human experience; the
rules approach gives form and substance to this
interaction-meaning cycle. Susan Shimanoff
tells
teraction and
exist,
two or
38.
they have rules for individual
symbols, but they must also agree on such mattake turns at speaking,
how
The
similarities
and differences
criticism, see the analysis
among
Donald
P.
rules theories
Cushman, “The
Communication:
Varieties, Limitations, and Potentials”
(Paper presented at the Speech Communication Associa-
tion,
to be
New
York
City, 1980); Stuart
munication Rules from
As an example of this
reason the rule-
this
Rules Perspective as a Theoretical Basis for the Study of
Human Communication,” Communication Quarterly 25
(1977), 30-45; W. Barnett Pearce, “Rules Theories of
NoFonTymust
how to
For
are discussed in such sources as
m ore interacting in-
dividu als must share rules for using symbols
ters as
not useful for understand-
life.
Susan B. Shimanoff, Communication Rules: Theory and
Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980), pp. 31-32.
“In order for communication to
or continue,
it is
social
37.
discusses the importance of rules in symbolic
interaction:
human
ing
of the
J.
Sigman,
a Social Perspective,”
“On Com-
Human ComCommu-
munication Research 7 (1980), 37-51; and Shimanoff,
concept of self in Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds, pp. 94-95.
nication Rules.
60
.
SYMBOLIC INTER ACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
governed approach to communication theory
often is set in opposition to the law-governed
approach.
of rules. The native speaker acquires these
life, based on maturation of innate
rules early in
The generative grammar school, an
important aspect of communication theory,
Chapter 5.
A second major rules application is that of
the previously mentioned philosophers of the
action tradition. These scholars relate actions to
abilities.
Another basic assumption of most
theories
basis
is
that social behavior
is
rules
structured and
will be discussed in
organized. Certain behaviors recur in similar
situations. Social interaction patterns, however,
vary in different settings. Although these patterns are organized, they are not universal, but
highly contextual. Thus most rules theories
consider the relationship between the way
people act and the culture and situation wherein
intentions via rules; people accomplish objectives
by applying
particular rules.
Thus
rules
are seen as practical tools for accomplishing
intentions.
the action occurs. In fact, rules scholars criticize
One branch of this
tradition
nary language philosophy, which
is
is
ordi-
responsible
law-governed theories precisely because of their
for the original
failure to reflect
This tradition deals with the ways people create
speech to fulfill intentions (see Chapter 6)
such variation.
Rules are considered to be the mechanism
through which social action is organized. The
A
structure of interaction can be understood in
rules
approach began
in
others,
by Wittgenstein, Austin,
is
discussed in greater depth in
Approaches to Rules
The rules perspective includes
Rule-following Approach.
view
rules are
Pearce calls such rules weak laws because they
are cast in the form of a statement of what is
expected to happen under certain circumstances. This approach is highly descriptive but
does not explain why particular patterns recur.
one of the important
Here the concept
of grammatical rules has been developed to explain how speakers can generate any novel sentence from minimal exposure to the language.
Sentences are generated and understood on the
Cushman, “The Rules
In this
seen simply as observed behavioral regularities.
A recurring pattern is said to happen “as a rule.”
find
lists
main
groups of rule conceptions.42
applications of rules theories.
Shimanoff, Communication Rules, pp. 33-34,
of the seminal figures in these fields.
several defi-
nitions. 41 Barnett Pearce outlines three
three major research and theory programs, described in the following paragraphs. 40
40.
become more
behaviorally adaptive.
and
Chapter
in depth would be impossible. Fortunately,
Donald Cushman has distilled this work into
39.
childhood and that an individual’s ability to
grasp and use rules becomes increasingly com-
Searle,
Other fields of study have taken up the
banner, including speech communication, anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and sociology. 39 Discussing all of these applications
we
in cognitive devel-
plex, allowing the individual to
6.
In linguistics
is
believe that rules are learned gradually during
the field of
philosophy in what has become known as ordinary language philosophy. That tradition,
spirited
third rules tradition
rules.
opment. Philosophers and psychologists of this
tradition study how people conceptualize and
solve problems and how their behavior is affected by cognitive processes. These scholars
terms of the rules governing it. Rules affect the
options available in a given situation. Because
rules are thought to be contextual, they explain
why people behave similarly in similar situations but differently in different situations.
The
work on communication
41
.
See Shimanoff, Communication Rules, for comparison of
various definitions as well as a discussion of the differences
between rules and other similar concepts such as norm.
some
42. Pearce, “Rules Theories.” See also Joan
Perspective.”
Systematic Study (The
61
Hague: Mouton,
Ganz, Rules:
1971).
A
GENERAL THEORIES
It
broader rule-using approach
aims only to catalogue predictable behaviors.
Linguistic theories typically are of this type,
mar with
a
high degree of regularity. Of all
this group least supports
and other heterogeneous rule situations.
Although these approaches may appear to
compete for explaining actions, they need not
be considered such. Various types of human
the basic assumptions of the rules tradition.
Here
better suited for
ter,
approaches to rules,
Rule-governed Approach.
is
understanding the preparation of a speech, the
organization of a meeting, the writing of a let-
suggesting that speakers follow rules of gram-
action can be classified properly under each cat-
rules are beliefs
rule-governed approach attempts to uncover
The problem for the theorist is to decide
what level is most appropriately defined as
communication “rules,” and on this matter
people’s intentions and to define the socially
there
about what should or should not be done to
achieve an objective in a given situation. The
egory.
ture
their intentions.
verbally.
To
would be
the desired conversation
we
have discussed the general na-
of rules.
how
will look at
helps us understand the nature of rules in
The second
approach.
the rules
differ.
actor potentially
rules for
is
confronted with
how
which
.
more
rules to follow (or
treatment of rules. Shimanoff surveyed the
properly, to use) in carrying out an intention.
erature
As
that incorporates
a rules critic the individual reflects
on
rules,
on
rules
following some and discarding others. This ap-
thinking in the
proach thereby provides
in
what choices
a
a basis for
person makes
evaluating
in a social situa-
tion and even allows for people to create
options.
It
a
new
how
and rules to plan an interaction strategy. In
homogeneous situation such as break-
highly
ing into a cocktail party conversation, the rules
are
way
field.
as to
She added to
make
it
rules theory
particularly applica-
communication. Her work is integrative
in that it critically considers and analyzes the
divergent literature. Shimanoff does not, indeed could never, incorporate all notions of
rules, but she explains her chosen position by
comparing and contrasting it with others. Finally, she takes a first step toward developing a
rules theory of communication that has the po-
well a person sorts through the matrix of objectives
such a
lit-
and formulated an overview
to be the best
what she judges
ble to
also enables the theorist to discuss
communication competence by observing
useful for seeing
rules operate in
ShimanofF s Integrative Approach
Susan Shimanoff s work is presented for several
reasons 43 It is perhaps the most recent general
of
accomplishing various intentions. The
actor chooses
is
ongoing interaction. Later
in the chapter we will examine some of the
ways these theories are similar and ways they
The
a variety
it
theory, that of Barnett
This view is consistent
with the rule-governed approach except that it
situation.
We
com-
munication, providing an excellent conceptual
Rule-using Approach.
social
the rules approach
Susan Shimanoff’s work because
Pearce and Vernon Cronen,
more complex
some
recent
from one
can be applied to communication theory.
and have the power to follow or to violate
them. It also assumes that people usually act
consciously, intentionally, and rationally.
posits a
Two
are rather different
another, will illustrate
could prevent
know
agreement.
rules approach, let us turn to
which
theories,
from occurring. This
approach presumes that people
that
of the
specific applications
interrupt or to break in too quickly
a rules violation that
is little
Now
in which people accomplish
For example, if a person wishes
to engage another person in conversation at a
party and the other person is talking with
someone else, one would approach the two individuals and not speak until recognized non-
ways
acceptable
few and simple. Here the rule-governed
suffices to explain what occurs. The
approach
43. Shimanoff, Communication Rules.
62
.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
tential
of clarifying and unifying the thought in
Shimanoff defines
a
what behavior
apply in
is
obligated, preferred, or prohibited in certain
contexts.” 44 This definition incorporates the
many
The “apology
their control; they
rule” just mentioned applies in
and
situations
is
it
is
therefore broad in
contextual in that
when one person
it
applies
some
you can probably think of situwhich apologizing is uncalled for and
bothers another in
fact,
ations in
potentially annoying.
Rules specify appropriate behavior.
tell
what
us
to do or not do.
how we must
cannot follow an impossible rule.
This statement does not imply that people are
is
Still,
way. In
One
Behavior
all
scope.
only
are fulfilled. For example, you are not following a rule by running out of a burning building.
On the other hand, rules must deal with the
indifferent to rules.
almost
(4)
choice in a course of action, then a “rule” is not
being followed. The laws of nature are not “fol-
possible.
different occurrences; pobe broad enough to cover
Hence, rules can be under-
may
situations.
stood in terms of their range or generalizability.
Rules must be followable. This criterion
implies that actors can choose whether to follow or to violate a rule. If a person has no
lowed” by the objects under
two
at least
tentially they
following four elements.
(1)
a position in the
middle. Since rules are a vehicle for understanding organized, recurring behavior, they must
rule as “a followable
prescription that indicates
Shimanoff takes
situations.
all
this area.
think,
They do not
They
specify
or interpret.
For
a rule may require an apology, but it
cannot require the apologizer to feel sorry.
In order to identify a rule properly, an obfeel,
example,
greatly affected
by rules, as the following criterion indicates.
(By the way, you perhaps have noticed that
Shimanoff uses the word follow differently
obligated,
from Pearce’s rule-following category de-
The
server
must be
able to specify
its
context and
its
or prohibited behavior.
preferred,
must be
rule also
form that
followable. Shimanoff
stated in a
scribed earlier.)
demonstrates that
By this Shimanoff
of action is called for and
that the failure to abide by the rule can be criticized. Prescriptions may state what is obligated,
preferred, or prohibited, but in any case negative evaluation may ensue if the rule is not
followed. Thus rules cannot “prescribe” per-
believes that the if-then format allows the ob-
(2)
means
Rules are prescriptive.
that a course
ponents: If
should).
If
mitted behaviors because no criticism would
if such behaviors were not chosen. For
example, while telling a joke is permissible in
certain situations, joke telling is not prescribed
and therefore not rule following. One is obligated to apologize, however, after accidentally
bumping another person, and
may
.
by specifying four com-
then one (must, must not,
.,
.
.
.
The
is
if clause specifies
the nature
not the owner or guest of the owner,
is prohibited from being in the land
marked off by
this sign.
one is playing bridge and
one must bid first.
If
If one is
the violation of
wearing
a hat
and
is
is
the dealer, then
entering a church,
then one must remove his/her hat.
result in criticism.
If one
Rules are contextual Shimanoff points out
that theories vary in the degree of contextuality
is
playing chess and one’s chess pieces are
white, then one must
45.
Some
Ibid., p.
79.
move his/her piece first. 45
Shimanoff adapted these
rule
examples
from Gidon Gottlieb, Logic of Choice: An Investigation of the
Concepts of Rule and Rationality (New York: Macmillan,
1968), p. 11; Max Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cor-
theories state that rules are idiosyncratic, that
each situation has its set of rules. Others seek
broad, almost universal, rules that cover nearly
44.
one
then one
(3)
believed to exist in a rules situation.
.
of the prescription and the prescribed behavior.
Consider the following examples:
follow
this rule
is
it
server to identify rules
University Press, 1962), p. 106; Raymond D. Gumb,
Rule-Governed Linguistic Behavior (Paris: Mouton, 1972), p.
nell
Ibid., p. 57.
21;
63
and Ganz, Rules,
p. 13.
GENERAL THEORIES
From Communication
Rules: Theory and Research,
by permission of the
publisher.
by Susan B. Shimanoff. Copyright
Figure 4.1. Decision
tree to identify rules from
64
© 1980 by Sage Publications. Reprinted
observed behavior.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
Notice that Shimanoffs use of if-then does not
imply causal reasoning in which the antecedent
of these are
causes a consequent.
Rather, the antecedent
deviating. Let us look at these in pairs, begin-
serves as the context in
which the
ning toward the center of the figure. Rule-
To
tifies
rule applies.
verify a rules theory, a researcher
must be
Shimanoffs
model
rule
is
Some
explicit.
nounced, for instance, on
rule book. Most rules are
must be
from
inferred
ticipants.
Such
a sign
or in a
(1) Is
game
though, and
in
terms of
the behavior controllable (to
assess the degree to
which the underlying
followable)?
the behavior criticizable (to
assess
naively opens a door for a woman. He is
unaware that he has followed a rule, but the
woman might respond by saying, “What a gentleman you are.” This behavior is rule fulfilling
because the boy didn’t know he was following a
prescription. On the other hand, had the boy
failed to open the door in ignorance of the rule
(rule-ignorant behavior), the woman might
whisper to the boy’s parents, “You need to
teach your child good manners.”
the behavior of the par-
Behavior can be examined
three criteria:
(2) Is
whether the underlying
rule
is
behavior contextual
tive)? (3) Is the
whether people behave differently
rule
behaviors involve
prevalent rule in
who
rules are an-
implicit,
rule-ignorant
knowing the rule. For example,
some situations is for men to
open doors for women. Imagine a little boy
a
rules are easy to see in operation
because they are
conforming, and four are rule
acting without
accu-
rate, one will be able to apply her rule criteria to
any episode and thereby identify the rules in
force.
rule
and
fulfilling
able to observe rules in operation in everyday
interaction. If
eight types of rule-related behavior. Four
is
prescrip(to assess
in various
situations)?
Applying these
easy.
criteria is not necessarily
For example, consider how difficult it
to determine whether an action is
would be
criticized.
We know
to evaluation
that rule behavior is open
and that compliance may be
is punished. Overt sanc-
praised while violation
tions are easiest to identify in observing interactions because they involve verbal or nonverbal
rewards and punishments. Sanctions may range
from simple frowns or smiles to a stern lecture
about rule violation. In addition to noting sanctions, observers
can also look for repairs. Here a
rule violator will
that a
rule
behave
in a
way
that reveals
was
violated. Apologizing is an
example. In the absence of overt sanctions or
repairs, the observer can ask participants
whether a given behavior was appropriate or
not. Figure 4.1 is a decision tree illustrating how
to identify rules
is
=
=
noncontrollable, noncriticizable, or
=
d =
noncontextual
rule-governed, but no
knowledge of the rule
tacit knowledge of a rule
conscious knowledge of a
rule
interesting contri-
e
her model of rule behavior, which
indicates the
a
b
c
from observed behavior. 46
One of Shimanoff s most
butions
Key:
=
conscious knowledge, plus
evaluation of a rule
ways people
relate to rules in actual interaction (Figure 4. 2) 47 This model iden46. Shimanoff, Communication Rules, pp. 106-7.
From Communication Rules: Theory and Research, by Susan
B. Shimanoff. Copyright© 1980 by Sage Publications.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
47. Ibid., p. 127.
Figure 4.2.
65
Rule-related behavior.
GENERAL THEORIES
Conforming or error behaviors definitely are
governed by rules, although the rule is not
noted consciously by the individual at the time
it integrates work from symbolic in4), system theory (Chapter
speech acts (Chapter 6), and relational
communication (Chapter 9). This theory is interesting not only because it integrates and
theory,
teractionism (Chapter
3),
followed or not followed. Men often unconsciously open doors for women, and frequently they fail to do so, not out of ignorance
it is
but because they are not thinking about
it
builds
on
a great deal
work but because
at the
moment. The first instance is an example of
conforming behavior, the second of error
it is
of previous theoretical
broadly applicable. It is
one of the few general theories of communication
per
se.
behavior.
Rule-following behavior
is
conscious compli-
Communication
ance with the rule. To pursue our example, rule
following would apply when a man intentionally steps ahead of a woman and opens a door.
Rule violation, on the other hand,
is
may
the
door for
his
not
man may
feel like
opening
interaction
companion.
it.
first.
open
a
does not espouse feminist
may make
point to open the door be-
a
mon
on reflection, he believes that the rule is a
good one.
The primary value of Shimanoff s treatment
the clear, operational definition of rule that
provides.
The following treatment of
rules
logic
of interactional
rules the
rules.
Any
positive
rules coordination.
Importance of Context.
Communication systems
must be viewed holistically. Individuals’ meanings are part of a hierarchy of meanings. (See
it
is
from Shimanoff s in that it does not
on the definition of rule but on how
different
center
what
find salient. Initially, at
outcome of communication, including mutual
understanding, depends first and foremost on
cause,
is
precisely
may
rules governing the behavior of participants. In
other words, participants must develop a com-
door
A man who
values
is
communication events are uncoordinated,
and the primary task in all communication is to
achieve and later sustain some form of coordination. Such coordination may or may not include mutual understanding (shared meaning),
but it must minimally involve a meshing of the
The women’s move-
take the initiative to
individual
least,
ment questions many social rules, such as men’s
opening doors. A feminist male may consciously choose not to open the door for a
woman, precisely because of his evaluation of
what the gesture implies about sex roles. Or a
woman may
knowing
other participants
Reflective behavior involves positive reflection
or negative reflection (following or violating) of a
rule after evaluating
An
interactional rules.
intentional
violation of the rule. For instance, a
be tired and simply
as Coordination.
of many systems, each with its own set of
Over time individuals internalize some of these rules and draw on them to
guide their actions. The basic problem of communication is that no two individuals enter an
part
Chapter 3 for the concept of hierarchy.) In other
words, the person is a whole entity but is part
of a larger context as well. Pearce and Cronen
individuals use rules in communication.
envision a rather complex hierarchy of meaning
Coordinated Management of Meaning
The theory of the coordinated management of
meaning, developed by W. Barnett Pearce,
Vernon Cronen, and
during the 1970s as
communication. 48
48.
a
emerged
comprehensive theory of
A
meaning-centered rules
dinated Management of Meaning,” in Comparative Human
Communication Theory, ed. Frank E. X. Dance (New York:
Harper & Row, 1982); W. Barnett Pearce, “The Coordinated Management of Meaning: A Rules Based Theory of
their colleagues,
Interpersonal
Communication,”
in Explorations in Interper-
sonal Communication, ed. Gerald R. Miller (Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications, 1976), pp. 17-36; Vernon Cronen, W.
Barnett Pearce, and Linda Harris, “The Logic of the Coordinated Management of Meaning,” Communication Education 28 (1979), 22-38.
W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen, Communication
(New York: Praeger, 1980); Vernon
Cronen, W. Barnett Pearce, and Linda Harris, “The CoorAction and Meaning
66
SYMBOLIC INTER ACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
contexts within which communication takes
The
is the message itself, the
and paralinguistic elements of
content level
The nature of this hierarchy varies from
system to system. Pearce and Cronen’s depic-
actual linguistic
tion (Figure 4.3) shows the hierarchy as a
hypothesized, idealized form. 49 One chooses
signed to
fulfill a
theory
covered in Chapter
place.
the utterance.
on the basis of the perceived conof the interaction. The communicator may
use any level of abstraction as the context of the
is
Speech
acts are messages desimple intention. (Speech act
rules partially
the defined requirements
text
episode
moment; how one behaves depends
the context in operation.
levels presented in
greatly
by
we
on
will
discuss an example.
49. Pearce
and Cronen, Communication
,
of the
6.) Contracts are
relationship.
An
sequence of speech acts perceived
participants to constitute a unit
of interaction. Life-scripts are sets of episodes taken by
the individual to be consistent with selfconcept. Finally, archetypes are accepted images of how things are, a person’s basic logic of
Let us explain the
Figure 4.3, then
a
is
the universe.
p. 131.
Consider, for example, a marriage in which
the
Archetypes
husband and wife tend
conflict.
On
to
withdraw from
the content level an observer
would concentrate on
the actual utterances of
husband and wife, looking closely at the
at the grammatical
At the speech act level the observer
the
types of words used and
structure.
would
Life-scripts
assess
the interactional rules,
perhaps
when the wife objected or disagreed with the husband, he would withdraw
or fail to respond. At the level of contracts, one
discovering that
might note that the couple maintained an implicit agreement not to argue with each other.
Episodes
we would say that this agreement was
requirement or “contract” of the relationship.
In a sense
a
In analyzing episodes one
would look
for repet-
behavior patterns. The observer might
note that the husband’s withdrawing in the face
itive
Contracts
of disagreement occurs over and over, and at a
higher level one might infer that conflictavoidance is an important part of his life-script.
Finally, as an archetype the couple might believe that harmony and happiness should pervade all human relationships.
Speech acts
Rules.
Content
theory and
and
regulative rules
make them
from speech
of their
a central part
In speech act theory constitutive
what a given act should be taken to
“count as”; regulative rules refer to how one
rules define
©
A
constitutive
act
treatment.
From Communication Action and Meaning, by W. Barnett
Pearce and Vernon Cronen. Copyright
1980 by Praeger
Publishers. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Figure 4.3.
Pearce and Cronen borrow the concept
of
should behave within
a given context. These
two kinds of rules are intimately related. Pearce
and Cronen take a major step in the develop-
model of hierarchically organized
meanings.
67
GENERAL THEORIES
ment of
they are
how
how
by demonstrating
communication and
rules theory
rules are involved in
managed by
Regulative rule:
(Notice that this approach to rules
is
the
husband
wife
insults,
substanepisode of playful banter
from Shimanoffs treatment.)
tially different
When
should cry.
participants in interaction.
[husband
demonstrate the operation of
rules, Pearce and Cronen developed a set of
symbols denoting rule structures. Three are
In order to
insults wife’s family
>
wife playfully hits husband]
fun
important here:
In play
it is
husband
=
in the context
of
Wife should respond to husband’s
Regulative rule:
|
by “hitting” him.
insult
> = counts
considered fun for the wife to “hit” the
he insults her family.
after
as
Constitutive rule:
=
The
first
if,
This sequence of events
is
to be
taken as fun.
then
symbol denotes the context of an
These examples are simple, but complex acts
be diagramed in the same fashion. Wheresimple examples are used here for clarity,
most significant interactions are far more complex. Notice also that the bracketing of context
is important for determining the rules in
may
act,
as
the second applies to a constitutive rule, and the
third
is
used in regard to
a regulative rule.
Con-
sider the following examples:
operation.
One’s
P la Y
>
insult
rule
system provides
a logical force for
acting, a pressure to act in certain ways.
joke
One
|
behaves in
In the context
of
play, an insult
is
a
manner
sumptions about the rules in force. Two types
of logical force operate in communication.
to be taken as a
joke.
Prefigurative force
Constitutive rule:
An
>
is
an antecedent-to-act link-
age in which the individual
insult counts as a joke.
ways
is
behave
in certain
tions.
Practical logical force
certain
way
“pressured” to
because of prior condi-
is an act-toconsequent linkage in which one behaves in a
conflict
insult
consistent with one’s as-
put-down
'
|
in order to achieve a future condiany communication encounter an indisystem for that context presents a
of “oughts” that guide interpretations,
tion. In
In the context
of conflict, an
insult
is
to be taken as a
vidual’s rule
put-down.
series
Constitutive rule:
An
responses, and actions.
insult counts as a
put-down,
(Do not become con-
fused by the use of terms here; prefigurative and
practical force are similar to the concepts
husband
insults wife’s family
of
causal and practical force referred to in Chapter
episode of an argument
wife cries
2,
|
but logical force here
is
a
broader concept
than that referred to in the earlier chapter.)
When
Coordinated Management.
arguing, the wife typically cries after the husband insults her family.
sion
68
is
The foregoing
discus-
preliminary to the heart of coordinated
.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
management
rules until
people actually
achieved.
theory, which deals with how
mesh their rules. The key problem of coordination is this: Each individual
must use his or her rules to guide interpretation
of and response to the actions of others, but
within
time
a short
tem must develop so
a
new
interpersonal sys-
Constitutive rule: If
stem
mand
successful.
make
say, “Is this ball
I
yours?” in
a
My
act, taken as anger, will elicit
crying and apologies. I in turn will become less angry
and will give back the ball.
how enmeshment occurs. 50
perhaps overly simple in order to
the process clear.) Person A acts in a
is
way
is
fashion, this act will be taken as anger, a defor a confession, and a threat.
Regulative rule:
Figure 4.4 shows
(The model
of coordination
level
adult begins with the following rule structure:
that the interactions are
some point participants must
become enmeshed for communication to be
coordinated. At
particular
some
Consider the simple example of a child trying to get back a ball after accidentally having
thrown it through a neighbor’s window. 51 The
The
in response to prior conditions
child,
on the other hand, has
a
very differ-
ent set of rules:
(prefigurative force) or to achieve a consequent
The
(practical force).
act
is
by Person B, who uses
Constitutive rule: When the neighbor says, “Is this
your ball?” he is asking for information. My statement, “Give it back,” will be taken as a request.
taken as a message
constitutive rules to
interpret the message. Person A’s act thus be-
tion,
is.”
by
Neighbor: “Is
consequent event
t
act]
Action and Meaning,
Publishers. Reprinted
act]
.
.
.*
3
consequent
-)
* Solid arrows denote constitutive rules. Broken arrows denote the
coorientational state of
message to the anticipated consequent event in anticipation of the next act.
From Communication
3
message
I
.
[antecedent event
t
[antecedent event
(time sequence
back.”
in Grade-School Children from Different
Social Class Backgrounds,” Genetic Psychology Monographs
87 (1973), 33-104.
message
Person B:
ball?”
it
Communication
Ibid., p. 174.
3
your
Give
The example is adapted from Pearce and Cronen,
Communication, pp. 162-64. Originally it was developed in
K. T. Alvy, “The Development of Listener Adapted
represent the consequent intended, and they will readjust their
act]
this
it is.
51.
son’s behavior does not
[antecedent event ID
will
will say,
Child: “Yes,
operating with substantially different rule structures, they quickly will discover that one per-
Person A:
I
Now observe the actual conversation:
A thus becomes a consequent
to A’s initial act. A will then compare B’s act
with the intended consequent. If A and B are
50.
I
back.
the standpoint of A’s constitutive rules. B’s act
as interpreted
When the neighbor requests informarespond with a factual answer, “Yes, it
“Give it back,” and he will give it
Regulative rule:
comes an antecedent event to which Person B
responds, based on B’s regulative rules. B’s act
is in turn interpreted by A as a message from
comparing the subsequent
by W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen. Copyright
by permission of the publisher.
Figure 4.4. Enmeshment process
69
©
1980 by Praeger
GENERAL THEORIES
Obviously, the neighbor did not get the expected response and will interpret the child’s
remark
control, and negative valence. In the successful
would have felt that the interacwas coherent. The neighbor would have
good deal of control, while the child probably would have felt little control. Both parties
probably would have felt positive valence.
version both
impudence rather than the simple
request intended by the child. At this point the
as
tion
felt a
is not coordinated. Now the neighbor must adjust the regulative rule by trying a
interaction
different approach:
Neighbor: “Give
Do you know
it
back? This ball hit
ture to provide options, he
successful
Communication Competence. The foregoing
window.
analysis
If the child has a sufficiently
ordination
my
that?”
complex
may
People
not be achieved. Consider:
outcome (coordination
I
mean
didn’t
to
as
achieved):
do
it,
and
I
Any communication
which
the degree to
ball.”
The
first is
coherence or
make
is
within and
cocreating or
are delineated.
Minimal competence, the inability to comanage
meanings with others in a system within which
one must exist, can result from an overly simple
episode can be evalu-
participants
move
the various systems s/he
comanaging .” 52
Three levels of competence
ated in terms of three variables related to coor-
dinated management.
“the person’s ability to
among
will be
careful in the future.”
Neighbor: “Okay. Here’s your
can choose facilely
tions in interpreting events
Neighbor: “Get out of my yard, kid.”
Child: “I’m sorry.
communicator.
in effectiveness as a
who
among rule opand acting within
situations will achieve coordination of meaning
more often than people who have a more restricted repertoire of rule systems. Pearce and
Cronen define this communication competence
If not, co-
Unsatisfactory outcome (no enmeshment):
Child: “Give my ball back. I’ll tell daddy if you don’t
give it back.”
Successful
shows clearly that an individual’s
manage a variety of rule systems is
important
adjust so that a
outcome can be achieved.
may
ability to
rule struc-
cognitive system that has restrictive constitu-
sense of
can also result from inability to
the sequence of events in the interaction. Lack
tive rules.
of coherence occurs when one or more participants feel they do not know what is going on.
Lack of coherence is the epitome of the lack of
adapt one’s rules to context or from inability to
take other individuals’ rule systems into
coordination.
The second
the degree to
which one or more
feel
make
able to
variable, control,
account.
competence enables a person to
system at hand,
Optimal competence is the ability to understand the
boundaries, strengths, and weaknesses of a system in comparison with other systems and to
actively choose whether to become enmeshed
in a particular system or to remain outside. An
optimally competent person can enter or exit a
system at will.
Satisfactory
is
communicate
participants
a
sufficiently
they
may
choices that affect the se-
complex
select rules
still
In other situations
rule structure so that
and
affect the course of the
maintaining coordination.
one or more participants
(even all participants) may feel highly coordinated but limited or programmed, such that
they have little effect on the outcome. The third
variable
Criticism of the Rules
and the
child. In the unsuccessful version
would have
felt
Approach
Criticism of rules theory typically has centered
valence or the degree to which partichappy with the interaction. Consider
the two versions of the example of the neighbor
is
around two
conceptual coherence and
explanatory power. Let us consider each of
ipants are
participants
effectively in the
usually achieving coordination with others.
quence of acts in the interaction. In some situations one or more participants are able to enact
encounter while
It
issues:
these in turn:
both
low coherence, low
52. Pearce
70
and Cronen, Communication
,
p. 187.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
First, is rules
theory conceptually coherent?
Berger’s view
The answer to this question is a resounding no.
Even its adherents admit that the rules tradition
lacks unity
objection in strong terms:
terrain covered
whole
is,
The
of chaotic. At the
least, it
covered
able,
approaches cannot be explanafail to develop generic
tory as long as they
behavior without indicating any form of neces-
To identify
the rules in operation within a particular conprinciples that cut across contexts.
is
Rule-governed approaches explain in
terms of practical necessity, although their genis somewhat limited. Pearce believes that
the rule-using approach, while presently limsity.
not sufficient to explain communication
erality
some point
one must go beyond the description of ‘what
the rules are’ and ask why some rules are selected over others
[and] what social forces
produced the kinds of conventions and appropriate modes of behavior we now observe.” 54
.
.
Human Communication:
54.
a
ited,
has the highest potential for explanatory
power
in
terms of both practical and logical
.
53. Jesse Delia, “Alternative Perspectives for the
nication Quarterly
necessary.
generality. Barnett Pearce discusses rules approach in terms of these criteria. 56 Rulefollowing approaches tend not to be explanatory because they merely describe recurring
are rules theories
sufficiently explanatory? Critics generally be-
processes. Berger believes that “at
is
believes
critic
Shimanoff disagree on the
of generality necessary for adequate explanation. We must also keep in mind that different rules theories possess different levels of explanatory power.
Recall from Chapter 2 that explanation is
made possible by principles of necessity and
approach. For them rules apply not only to
overt behavior but to internal meanings as well.
text
not whether
what kind of
explanation the
level
place constitutive rules at a central place in their
lieve that rules
is
rules theories are explanatory but
Clearly, Berger and
of coherence. Shimanoff is firm in stating
must deal with overt behavior. She
believes that the concept should not apply to
interpretation. Pearce and Cronen, however,
that a rule
is,
and perhaps not possible, rules theories
The appropriate question here
illustrate this
lack
The second question
rules explanations, in contrast to laws
should seek reason-giving explanations that
cover relatively broad classes of situations, even
to the point of allowing for prediction. 55
theoretical substance. 53
we have
most
explanations can be generalized. While developing universal explanations would not be desir-
clear that there
theories
rules advocates do not go along with
argument, of course. Shimanoff points out
that
Behaviors are explained in terms of their practical impact on creating desired outcomes. Such
rule construct,
The two
this
explanations, are teleological or reason giving.
“rules” territory taken as a
in fact, little short
is
Most
is no unifying conception of the
of the domain of phenomena to which
the construct has reference, of whether rules have
generative power in producing and directing behavior, ... or of the proper way to give an account
of some domain of phenomena utilizing the construct. The idea of “rules” as a general construct
represents only a diffuse notion devoid of specific
is
law approach
in disguise.
by notions of “rules,” then, is
broad, grossly diffuse, and imprecisely articulated.
And the real problem for any position purporting to
be a general rules perspective is that the meaning of
“rule” does not remain constant either within or
across these domains.
that a covering
tempts of rules theorists to provide generic
principles are nothing more than covering laws
and coherence. Jesse Delia verbalizes
this
The
is
ultimately necessary to provide explanation; at-
Critique and Response,”
necessity and generality.
Shimanoff s theory
Study of
heuristic
Commu-
is
Charles R. Berger, “The Covering
Law
basically descriptive,
As such it is highly
methodological standpoint. It
rules in a social situation.
25 (1977), 54.
Theoretical Basis for the Study of
is
providing detailed guidelines for identifying
from
a
also strong in providing conceptual guidance
Perspective as
Human Communica-
55.
tion,” Communication Quarterly 25 (1977), p. 12.
Shimanoff, Communication Rules, pp. 217-34.
56. Pearce,
71
“Rules Theories.”
GENERAL THEORIES
understanding rules. Shimanoffs theory,
however, does not present much explanation.
in
Little basis exists for
ular kinds
understanding
shows
meaning
periential
Shimanoff’s framework
have to see what theorists do with
is
Of
course, shared
largely a function of
constitutive rules, but
and
meaning
agreement on
also has an ex-
referential aspect as
we shall see in
Chapter 6. This theory could be strengthened
by showing how other aspects of meaning enter
potential for developing explanation, but
shall
explain coherence.
itself to
partic-
of communication behavior occur
in various situations.
we
why
in
the coordination process. Instead of assuming,
Although Pearce and Cronen do not present
firm guides for identifying rule behavior, their
theory of coordinated management is a step
standing always follows coordination, the
theory could elaborate ways in which mutual
understanding may sometimes prefigure coor-
toward providing explanation of rule-using be-
dination.
it
the future.
as
in this
The theory appears to be quite heuristic
way. The authors have demonstrated
how
can be tested with
havior.
it
a variety
What Do We Know about Communication
of research
methods. 57 This theory has potential for
as Symbolic Interaction?
The unifying idea behind this chapter is symbolic interaction. The term is chosen as an integrating concept because the theories of this
domain all deal with ways people interact to
stimulating a series of studies that could un-
cover
new dimensions of
communication
the
process.
The power of Pearce and Cronen’s theory
results
primarily from
elaboration of the
its
operations by which coordination
The
is
create social entities. Society requires social in-
achieved.
teraction.
theory’s concepts help structure an ob-
server’s perceptions
of what
is
happening
in
will take issue
with
meaning. Although shared meaning is important, Pearce and Cronen believe that it is not
communication and
essence of social
life is
in
the
commu-
of symbols. Interaction is
both the precursor and the product of shared
meaning, and shared meaning makes all aspects
of society possible. In short, the work of this
domain demonstrates that communication,
above all else, is a symbolic, rule-governed
Pearce and Cronen’s subordination of shared
crucial for successful
requires social order and
The
nity through the use
a sufficiently complete set of
hypotheses to enable the observer to predict the
course or outcome of an interaction.
no doubt
also
coming together of human beings
not yet generated
critics
It
shared meaning.
any
communication event. However, the theory has
Some
Pearce and Cronen do, that mutual under-
activity.
Two
groups of theory are presented in
this
The first, symbolic interactionism,
with the ways in which human life, both
private and public, is affected by symbols and
meaning. The second, rules theory, gives us a
that
chapter.
coordination always precedes understanding.
Their postulate that rules coordination is essen-
deals
for successful communication may well be
but critics will point out that the degree
and rapidity with which rules mesh may detial
valid,
means
for understanding
how
social order
is
research re-
among humans, who, unlike lower
make choices.
These two sets of theory demonstrate a
ported by Pearce and Cronen indeed provides
strong evidence that rules coordination is neces-
handful of generalizations that have become so
popular as to assume the status of truisms. First,
maintained
pend on the degree of shared meaning already
established within the system.
The
animals, are able to
sary for interaction coherence, but these studies
symbolic interaction
do not imply
ciety.
57.
Ten
that coordination
studies ranging widely in
is
sufficient
method
Pearce and Cronen, Communication, chap.
by
is
the binding force of so-
Second, symbolic interaction
is
vital to
human development. The roles we take in society and the images we have of ourselves are
are reported in
7.
72
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND RULES THEORY
shaped through interaction with other people.
Third, people create their own worlds through
shared also with system theory, stems from the
general nature of the first two domains (Chap-
the use of symbols and meanings.
ters 3
to
most of the
Fundamental
theories in this chapter
is
realities. Fourth, thinking is merely an
extension of symbolic interaction with others.
Fifth, social behavior is largely governed by rules that, unlike causative laws, are
others.
specific contexts; indeed, they often are, as
guidelines for individual choice.
is
will see repeatedly
to theories in this
that they are abstract
Admittedly, most of the theories
of communication without postulating specific
relationships within given situations. They
have been grouped together because of this
shared goal. Do not misinterpret however, that
these general theories cannot be applied to
Thinking, or internal conversation, is based on
meanings learned through interaction with
group
4).
in these
own
The primary objection
and
two chapters are not discriminating, for
they are designed to capture the general essence
the
belief that people are active builders of their
throughout the
text.
you
Evalua-
tions of the specific symbolic interactionist
and diverse in
rules theories related to various
and
themes and con-
Rules theorists do not even agree
texts are presented in the appropriate chapters.
a rule is; their definitions vary from
extremely mechanistic to highly humanistic.
Like general system theory, symbolic interactionism and rules theory are most valuable for
their claims.
on what
Symbolic interactionism is sometimes vague
and the researcher can never be sure, based on
these theories, precisely
what
guiding our thinking about the nature of communication events rather than for directing our
to observe in at-
observations of specific finely
tempting to verify claims. This criticism,
73
combed
events.
PART
m
THEMATIC THEORIES
Chapter 5
Theories of Language and
Nonverbal Coding
Chapter 6
Theories of Meaning
Chapter 7
Theories of Information and
Information Processing
Chapter 8
Theories of Persuasion
CHAPTER
Theories
of Language and
5
Nonverbal Coding
Essentially every theoretical approach to
plies to all
communication recognizes as a basic fact that
communication takes place through the use of
signs. Roughly, a sign is a stimulus that embodies a meaning beyond itself. Signs that elicit
cially pertinent here.
are sometimes
Other signs are complex,
evoking a rich variety of meanings and conceptions. Such signs, important to most of the
known
as
signals.
discussion in this chapter
two broad
areas.
The
first
is
human
to
theories in this chapter, are often referred to as
interest
symbols. 1 This chapter and the next are devoted
to theories that attempt to describe and explain
the role of symbols in communication.
Our
turies.
is
behavior that
of social
scientists
divided into
to linguistics
field
thus con-
two
large, overlapping branches. Historical linguistics
is
the study of how language changes over time
and
particular languages,
how
it
has evolved into language groups in
the world. Descriptive
or nonverbal,
elements of communication are also important.
The second section of the chapter presents some
and
how
ily
linguistics is
how
book we
will discuss primar-
the twentieth-century theories of descriptive
linguistics.
The
theories presented in this sec-
tion address three significant sets
(1)
the study of
they are structured
they are used. (Several subbranches
also exist.) In this
prominent theories of nonverbal communication. The next chapter covers theories of meaning, a topic that is intimately intertwined with
the subject matter of the present chapter.
A casual reading of this chapter may leave the
impression that it provides a complete picture
of theory in language and nonverbal commu-
How
is
language structured?
of questions:
What
are the
and relations within a sentence?
language used? What mental or be-
syntactical units
(2)
How
is
fine textbooks on language study. A
John B. Carroll, The Study of Language (CamAt the University Press, 1953). More recent texts
include Lois Bloom, Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1970);
2.
No brief treatment could ever accomplish such a synthesis. Indeed, the areas of
language and nonverbal communication consist
nication.
There are many
classic is
bridge:
of specialties and subspecialties that have produced a copious quantity of research and theory.
B. G. Blount, ed., Language, Culture, and Society:
A
Book
Winthrop Publishing, 1974): Yuen
Ren Chao, Language and Symbolic Systems (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1968); Phillip S. Dale, Lan-
of Readings (Cambridge:
issues within these fields are
subtle,
has captured the
and the breadth of the
large,
cation,
sometimes
it
and scholars for cen-
The number of approaches
primary element of most human communication. Although language is central to communi-
The
espe-
fusingly broad. 2 Basically, linguistics has
covers language, the
certain nonlinguistic,
it is
Theories of Language
Linguistics, the study of language, is one of the
most important theoretical areas related to
human communication. Language is so central
programmed responses
singular,
of the chapters in the book,
numerous,
and always more complex
While this qualification ap-
Perspectives on Persuasion (Boston:
guage Development: Structure and Function (Hinsdale, 111.:
Dryden Press, 1972); Joseph A. DeVito, ed., Language:
Concepts and Processes (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1973); Paul Garvin, Method and Theory in Linguistics
(New York: Humanities Press, 1970); Archibald Hill, ed.,
pp. 52-68.
Linguistics
than implied here.
1.
This analysis taken from Wallace Fotheringham,
Allyn and Bacon, 1966),
77
Today
(New
York: Basic Books, 1969).
THEMATIC THEORIES
—
phemes are free they can stand alone as a
in a sentence. Other morphemes are
bound they must be combined with other
morphemes to form words. On the syntax level
words are combined according to rules to form
havioral processes are involved in the production and reception of speech? (3)
How
is
word
lan-
guage acquired?
Classical Linguistics
A
revolution occurred in the study of language
after the
came
mid-1950s.
Many
grammatical phrases, which are linked together
into clauses and sentences. This structural approach provides an orderly classification of language parts. Actual observed segments are put
language scholars
grammar
to conceptualize
quite differ-
ently than they had before. Still, many elements
of the old grammar have lived on in various
forms. Let us review the salient features of classical linguistics,
tive
grammar
—
of
into classes
given type (phoneme, mor-
a
pheme, and so forth), and these segments are
sequenced in a sentence-building process. At
each level of analysis is a finite set of classes (for
then turn to the newer genera-
in the next section.
standard model of sentence structure was de-
example, phonemes or morphemes) that can be
observed in the native language. Sentences are
always built up from the bottom of the hierar-
veloped between 1930 and 1950 in the
chy, so that succeeding levels depend on the
Structural Linguistics.
structural period. 3
What
Numerous
has
become
the
classical
formation of lower
linguists contrib-
uted to this model, but the most important
include Leonard Bloomfield, Charles Fries, and
scription
Zellig Harris. 4 Basically,
explain
down
question, far
a
sentence into
While
this model breaks
component parts in
levels.
this approach provides a useful deof the structure of language, it fails to
how
people use language. This
more
central to
Sounds and sound groups
combine to form word roots and word parts,
which in turn combine to form words and
than language structure, has
phrases.
Phrases are put together to make
clauses or sentences. Thus language can be
analyzed on various levels, roughly correspond-
knowledge of
ing to sounds, words, and phrases.
quired?
hierarchical fashion.
The
the at-
tention of psycholinguists since about 1950.
know
must possess an
that people
We
intuitive
language in order to produce meaningful, grammatical speech. What is
of
the nature
of sounds involves the study
of phonetics. An isolatable speech sound is a
phone. Phones of a particular type are grouped
into a sound family called phoneme, which is the
basic building block of any language. Any
dialect of a language contains a number of
phonemes. These phonemes are combined according to rules to produce morphemes, the
smallest meaningful linguistic unit. Some mor3.
latter
communication
demanded
How
their
this
is it
knowledge? How is it acThese important
actualized?
questions have been addressed by psycholin-
first level
The literature
work is extensive,
guists in the last three decades.
that has
emerged from
this
controversial, and highly technical.
Grammar. The earliest attempt to
people produced sentences was the
approach. No serious language
scholar of today uses this approach because it
was proved invalid years ago. Reviewing it
briefly is instructive, however, to illustrate the
development of language theory and to provide
a contrast with modern grammar theory. Basi-
Finite-State
explain
how
finite-state
An excellent summary and critique of this period can be
found inj. A. Fodor, T. G. Bever, and M. F. Garrett, The
Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and
Generative Grammar (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974).
4. Leonard Bloomfield, Language (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1933); Charles Fries, The Structure of
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1952); Zellig
Harris, Structural Linguistics (Chicago: University of
cally,
Chicago
providing
finite-state
theorists
tences are produced
English
word
Press, 1951).
78
at a
from
believed that senleft
to
right,
time, with the selection of each
a set
one
word
of choices for the next word.
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
The obvious weakness of finite-stace grammar
provided no simple, parsimonious exhow human beings could produce
an infinite number of novel sentences. In other
words, it allowed for little creativity on the part
of speakers.
is
that
it
planation for
This process continues until all units of the sentence are accounted for, including small parts
such as the articles the or an. These analyses are
often illustrated
Figure
by
a tree
diagram,
as
shown
in
5.1.
of Classical Linguistics. The primary
objection to classical linguistics is that although
Criticism
Grammar. This approach, a
mainstay in grammar theory for many years, is
no longer believed to be adequate by itself to
Phrase-Structure
explain the generation of sentences. 5
Its
it is
useful as a taxonomic, or descriptive, ap-
proach,
essential
is
A
how language
simple example will suffice to
this
weakness. Phrase-structure
it is
powerless to explain
generated.
however, are still used as part of a
larger explanatory framework, which is ex-
illustrate
plained in the next section. Phrase structure
breaks down a given sentence into phrases. A
tences exactly the
features,
grammar would
sentence is a hierarchy of components, with
each successively larger component being generated by a set of rewrite rules. For example, a
sentence may be broken down according to the
following rewrite rule:
sentence
<->
different: 6
origins
must be
John
is
easy to please.
John
is
eager to please.
Although
easy and eager have different semantic
meanings, these sentences have entirely differ-
noun phrase + verb phrase
ent syntactical meanings. In the
Or, to use an actual example:
The
two sensame way, even though the
analyze the following
slightest inspection reveals that their syntactical
first
sentence
John is the object of the infinitive to please. In
the second John is the noun phrase of the sen-
girl hit the ball
tence.
Regular phrase structure provides no
Information
Theory, vol. IT-2 (1956): 113-24; and Jerry
Fodor, James Jenkins, and Sol Saporta, “Psycholinguistics
and Communication Theory,” in Human Communication
Theory, ed. Frank Dance (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1967), pp. 160-201.
6.
The verb phrase can be broken down
according to the following rewrite
verb phrase
<-
verb
+ noun
rule:
The
phrase
Or, to continue the example:
hit the ball
5.
For an explanation and critique of
phrase-structure
Models
grammar,
for the Description
Examples from Gilbert Harmon, On Noam Chomsky:
(Garden City: Anchor Books, 1974), p. 5.
Critical Essays
further
finite-state and
Noam Chomsky, “Three
of Language,” Transactions on
see
79
girl hit the ball
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
way
easy
to explain these different grammatical
description. Second, the objective of generative
meanings.
grammar
problem involves theoretical
The nature of classical lin-
Basically, this
appropriateness
is
to isolate a set
of
rules that will
parsimoniously explain how any sentence could
be generated. Parsimony is the key. Inventing a
guistics makes it inappropriate as an explanatory device; yet, the most important questions
of language demand that the theorist go beyond
mere description of sentences as uttered. Questions to be answered include the following:
What constitutes a necessary and sufficient
grammar, such that a speaker competent in the
grammar of a language can produce an infinite
number of novel sentences? By what cognitive
process are sentences generated and understood? How is syntactical ambiguity to be
accounted for? How is language acquired? To
answer questions such as these, generative
grammar has been developed.
new
rule for each construction
is
not workable.
Indeed, the brain
is finite and cannot operate on
an infinitely expanding set of linguistic rules.
Yet people can produce and understand an in-
number of sentences. An adequate grammar must explain this paradox. The answer lies
number of rules that can be
finite
in a relatively small
used over and over again to produce novel sen-
The third essential feature of generative
grammar is the transformation. (In fact, generative grammar is alternatively named transfortences.
mational grammar.)
key element
We
Transformations are the
in the generative
shall see the role
grammar system.
mo-
of transformations
mentarily.
Generative
Grammar
Noam Chomsky
the primary force behind
is
As
generative grammar.
1950s,
Chomsky
sical theorists to
has
become
parted
develop an approach that since
contemporary
any theoretical tradition
grammar now
generative
built
a cluster
of
The
essential ideas.
is
Three of
grammar
Standard
rests
structures are
Original generative theory
components of grammar. Deep
believed to be underlying sentence
models constructed by the use of base phraseThe deep structure of any sentence is modified by transformation rules, result-
structure rules.
Chomsky’s works include: Syntactic Structures (Hague:
Mouton, 1957); Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge:
7.
ing in an uttered (or utterable) surface structure.
A
M.I.T. Press, 1965); Cartesian Linguistics:
Chapter in the
History of Rationalist Thought (New York: Harper
Row,
1966); Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar (The
Sentence generation proceeds along the follow-
&
ing lines.
Hague: Mouton, 1966); Language and Mind (New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968); The Sound Pattern of
English (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory (The Hague: Mouton, 1970); Problems of
Knowledge and Freedom (New York: Pantheon Books, 1971);
Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (The Hague:
Mouton, 1972); Reflections on Language (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975); The Logical Structure of Linguistic
Theory (New York: Plenum Press, 1975); Essays on Form and
Interpretation
Theory.
posits four basic
on the believed centrality of sentence generation, which
is seen as far more important than sentence
generative
many
standard theory, which for
linguistics.
these ideas warrant discussion.
First,
first is
years represented the mainstream of thought in
has several positions
although the tradition as a whole
it,
on
freely admits, transformational
grammar does not yet solve all of the mysteries
of language. Consequently, various versions
have emerged as alternative explanations of
language processes. We will cover two of these.
a young linguist in the
company with the clas-
the foundation of
linguistics. 7 Like
within
As Chomsky
Deep structure is
The deep structure is
tal
created with base rules.
a sentence
model,
structure, not utterable as speech.
a
men-
It
is
a
model of sentence parts resembling a simple
declarative form. The rules used to generate the
deep structure are rewrite rules that follow
lines originally developed in phrase-structure
(New York: North Holland, 1977); Rules and
(New York: Columbia University Press,
grammar.
Representations
Next, a surface structure
1980).
80
is
generated by
:
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
transformation rules. Unlike rewrite rules
transformation rules are instructions of movement: Move component x to location y. For
example, the active transformation moves
components so
+ VP
that they appear in the order
(Sally hit the ball).
The
John loves Mary.
Mary
The
NP
be
by deleting
and placing the adjective in
John loves Mary.
Mary
is
pretty.
John loves pretty Mary,
(adjective)
Suppose you wish to generate the sentence,
Ripe mushrooms are loved by hobbits. 9 You
would do this in two stages. First, with the
phrase-structure rules
deep
tree, as
shown
you would generate
passive trans-
of the sentence. All of the basic logical grammatical relations are present, and the meaning
of the sentence is set. Don’t worry that this
deep structure does not resemble the intended
formation inverts the noun phrase and verb
adds the preposition by
surface structure.
Several English transformations are explained in brief
'Peter Salus, Linguistics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-
The deep
structure
is
an ab-
form by
Merrill, 1969)y
From
Linguistics,
9.
by Peter H.
Salus.
Copyright
Example from
ibid.
© 1969 by The Bobbs-Merrill Company,
the publisher.
Figure 5.2.
An
a
in Figure 5.2. This deep
tree provides the basic semantic interpretation
phrase, puts the verb in the passive form, and
8.
form
front of the noun:
tion rules: the passive transformation and the
The
loved by John, (passive)
the verb
passive transfor-
mation prescribes NP + auxiliary + VP + NP
(The ball is hit by Sally). A sufficient, but parsimoniously small, number of phrase-structure
and transformation rules will permit the generation of any proper sentence.
Since this book is not a linguistics text, we
will not cover the range of possible transformation rules of English. In order to understand the
basics of the theory, however, we will look at
an example. Our example uses two transformaadjective transformation. 8
is
adjective transformation occurs
example of deep
81
structure.
Inc.
Reprinted by permission of
THEMATIC THEORIES
stract entity
from which the
components:
actual sentence will
The
surface tree
— the
actual sentence
—
described above, passive and adjective. Figure
5.3 illustrates the surface tree.
With
rules
number of
a relatively small
and transformation
rules,
a
rewrite
speaker can
generate any novel grammatical sentence.
(She)
4-
VP
(teaches dancing).
—
is
two transformations
generated by applying the
NP
The other is transformed from a deep structure
of two clauses (1) NP (She) + VP (dances),
and (2) NP (She) + VP (teaches)
that have
been combined into a single deep structure of
the following form: NP (She) + S (who dances)
+ VP (teaches). These deep structures would be
diagrammed as indicated in Figure 5.4.
Obviously, this theory explains surface am-
be generated in the next stage.
The
—
is generated on the
deep or abstract level with phrase structure, and
sentences are generated by subjecting the under-
biguities, while the classical structure cannot.
lying structure to transformations. In essence
Chomsky
basic semantic structure
this
process
what
is
“knows” about
a
also illustrates that in standard theory
must always be located
veloped and controversial.
Trace Theory.
from
If
an uttered sentence has more
a separate
example, the sentence, She
has
two
possible meanings.
,
imate better
to
Trace theory, or extended standard
was developed
in an attempt to approxpeople assign interpretations
grammatical structures. Advocates of trace
theory
ingful sentence structure has one, and only one,
derivable
however, that
not sufficient to explain
all
is a parsimonious
and descriptively adequate explanation of how
the speaker uses this knowledge.
An essential feature of standard theory is that
a singular correspondence exists between a surface structure and its deep structure. Any mean-
than one syntactical meaning, each meaning
to believe,
is
It
meaning
the deep level.
meaning structures. He therefore has developed a new approach, which is as yet unde-
The two-stage
sentence-generation model
deep structure.
come
has
deep grammar alone
speaker intuitively
the language.
at
how
theory, including
Chomsky, add an
additional
is
deep structure. For
is
a
dancing teacher,
No
analysis of sur-
face structure alone can explain this paradox.
The two
interpretations stem
from separate
deep structures with different configurations.
One stems from a structure with the following
dancing
teaches
Ripe mushrooms
are loved
by
A. Deep
structure for first interpretation.
B. Deep
structure for second interpretation.
hobbits
© 1969 by
From Linguistics by Peter H. Salus. Copyright
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. Reprinted by
,
permission of the publisher.
Figure 5.3.
An
example of a surface
Figure 5.4.
structure.
82
Two
illustrative
deep structures.
.
.
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
level to sentence production. 10
Deep
AND NONVERBAL CODING
through
structures
their traces,
and surface elements are
of meaning.
are generated
by base rules, and transformations are applied, resulting in S-structures
combined
S-structures possess the basic structure of the
Language Acquisition. Some of Chomsky’s
most revolutionary and controversial ideas re-
uttered sentence, except that they contain
in the attribution
“traces” of components in former positions before being moved by transformation rules.
late to
Traces are seen strictly as mental representations of deep sentence structure that aid in
stitutes
surface interpretation.
knowledge comes from.
nological rules.
The
scholars immediately began to ask
S-structures are trans-
lated into actual utterable sentences
is
the logical form or LF-structure
Consider the following sentence as an example: Who do you want to visit? This question is
ambiguous. It could mean (1) What person do
you wish to go to? or (2) What person do you
wish to come to you? The first interpretation
stems from the deep structure, You wish to visit
The second comes from, You
Applying transformation
speaker moves the element who to
who.
visit.
the sentence, but a mental trace
location
is left
wish
who
rules,
in the S-structure, as follows:
who
do you want
want
t to visit.
to
visit t,
and
(2)
who
stimuli.
intellectual scandal.” 13
10.
is
(1)
do you
is
Chomsky
.
Trace theory
is
Examples from
,
92; Learning Theory and the Symbolic Processes
John Wiley and Sons,
13.
(New
York:
Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory,
14.
One
learning theory approach, contextual generaliza-
tion, was developed to explain this phenomenon. See Martin D. Braine, “On Learning the Grammatical Order of
Words,” Psychological Review, 70 (1963): 323-48. For a debate on the basic issues, see ibid.; T. G. Bever,
J. A. Fodor,
and W. Weksel, “A Critique of Contextual Generalization,”
Psychological Review, 11 (1965): 467—82; Martin Braine, “On
the Basis of Phrase Structure: A Reply to Bever, Fodor, and
Weksel,” Psychological Review, 72 (1965): 483-92; T. G.
Bever, J. A. Fodor, and W. Weksel, “Is Linguistics Empirical?” Psychological Review, 72 (1965): 493-500.
that in the latter,
Chomsky,
Chomsky, The
1960).
p. 40.
words, deep elements,
explained in
approaches language acquisition
The, best known behavioristic treatment of language
learning is Skinner, Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957). For an integrated learning
theory of language, see Arthur Staats, Learning, Language,
and Cognition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1968). Finally, see H. Hobart Mowrer, “The Psychologist
Looks at Language,” American Psychologist 9 (1954): 66012.
Rules and Repre-
sentations, pp. 155-81.
1 1
behaviorists’ expla-
does not explain the ability to produce and understand novel sentences that the child has
never heard before. 14
attributed at the S-level, not the
In other
The
is inadequate on two counts. It cannot
adequately account for the extremely rapid acquisition of language in early childhood, and it
.
level.
of associations and
nation
interpretation, you would utter these two
words distinctly and avoid using wanna 11
The important difference between standard
meaning
a series
Generative theorists find this explanation
weak. Chomsky calls it “a dead end, if not an
to
the
ongoing speech phonological rules allow
you to make a distinction between these two
meanings in the way you utter the sentences.
For example, one such rule allows you to contract want and to to wanna, if and only if these
two morphemes are contiguous. In the
S-structure of the first sentence they are contiguous and thus you could say, Who do you
wanna visit? But in the second sentence the trace
of the former placement of who separates want
and to. Thus to properly get across the second
theory and trace theory
Through
reinforcements, the child’s responses are repeated and shaped to form language.
In
deep
this
highly developed, but blank, cerebral cortex,
responds randomly to various environmental
the front of
of its former
(t)
where
The behaviorists had a ready answer. For
them language is learned in the same fashion as
is any other behavior. 12 The child, born with a
by pho-
spoken sentence
resultant
language acquisition. Once Chomsky
system of grammar that conan individual’s linguistic knowledge,
identified the rich
ibid.
83
”
THEMATIC THEORIES
with the assumptions that language is a fundamental cognitive element and that cognition,
any other physiological/anatomical process
form and content of linguistic rules is the best one
the language from which the corpus is drawn 16
for
.
like
a biological function.
is
basic language
Thus
knowledge
for
Chomsky
innate. According
born with various
kinds of linguistic information 15 This information is universal and is not related to any partic-
Chomsky,
to
the child
is
is
Our understanding of language acquisition is
The
innate information
the
is
same regardless of the culture into which the
child is born. Chomsky believes that the child
brings to language learning a basic knowledge
of all the possible universal phonetic sequences
(as
opposed
to impossible sequences),
ble deep structure trees (as
ble trees),
and
all
possi-
opposed to impossi-
possible transformations (as
opposed to impossible ones). The child knows
the difference between what is possible in any
language
(a
ing.
The alternative theory we have just disis abstract and vague. In the future
we
be able to see advances in understanding of
cussed
may
this interesting
language universal) and
grammars. Further, the child
what
is
not.
born with
is
a
standard routine for testing the utterances
heard. This recognition device allows the child
to match what is heard against all possible
sequences until the
grammar of the
language
is
triggered
by experience.
improved knowledge of
Generative
is
“Chomsky
between this process
of a field linguist:
in the
has
let
Chomsky’s view,
task analogous to that
of
is
to his task
empty-handed:
sion of a
linguistic theory”.
problem
is
that
ideally,
bears directly
Yet, curiously, generative theory has
tle
interpretation and summary is provided
Psychology of Language, pp. 470—72.
of language primarily
as a tool
of communica-
phenomenon of import in and
Needless to say, this claim is controand we shall return to it in the section
itself.
criticism.
is
is
philosophically interest-
Its blend of philosophical
provocative as Justin Leiber points out:
.
talistic
.
.
character, belonging to the
paradox
menhuman mind. The
resolved by recalling that it is the infinite
capacities of human thought, the infinistic and abstract character of man’s linguistic competencies,
that
infinitely
by Fodor
lit-
ideas present] a peculiar, but explicable,
paradox;
namely, that man has a kind of free
creative nature that Chomsky believes depends
on
the highly constraining innateness, and derived
... In either case the
that satisfy universal constraints
had
many scholars interested in comChomsky prefers not to conceive
impact on
munication.
[Chomsky’s
in posses-
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, p. 30.
on problems of human
cognition.
on
is
purport to establish that
Chomsky,
has be-
it
views
.
of discovering which of the
many grammars
It
especially important in psycholinguistics,
since
ing and complex.
faced with a
both are
in-
states,
a single
come
versial,
confronted
with an alien language. Both are required to construct a characterization of the regularities underlying
a certain set of phonetic strings
where the relevant form of characterization is a generative grammar. Like the field linguist, the child does not come
.
is
.
on
a field linguist
.
fields
all
Harmon
Gilbert
us see that there
tion but a natural
make an analogy
child and the work
then, the child
human thought
affects
lated interest in other fields as well.
Chomsky’s work
In
basic
subject of language and mind which crosses
departmental boundaries 17 This theory grew
out of the field of linguistics but rapidly stimu-
of
Fodor, Bever, and Garrett
15.
grammar
terested in language.
native lan-
not “learned” but develops and
will be dis-
processes.
guage
is “discovered.” This sorting process
involves the child’s hypothesizing about the native grammar and testing the hypothesis. Thus
phenomenon. What
covered about language acquisition particularly
and language behavior generally may lead to an
all
This amounts to an enumeration of all possible
nativists believe that the lan-
a child acquires in the first few years is
too rich to be explained solely in terms of learn-
.
ular language.
The
primitive.
guage
man
is
by nature beyond
An
et al.,
84
16.
Fodor
17.
Gilbert Flarmon,
et al., Psychology of Language, p. 472.
On Noam
Chomsky,
p. vii.
a
.
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
behaviorist or determinist viewpoint. One needs a
strong, built-in capacity, as it were, before full, free
nores or downplays semantics. Primarily
creativity can manifest itself as choice within this
dividual lexical units and their meanings are
infinite, discrete range.
.
.
.
The freedom Chomsky
.
In treating the study
science,
Chomsky
World View
lieves that
Second, critics are bothered by the failure of
generative grammarians to consider problems
of language as used in everyday life. Generative
grammar treats language as an abstraction,
claiming that an understanding of the anomalies
of language use is unimportant to an understanding of language itself. This approach
makes a sharp distinction between language
competence and language performance The former is knowledge of grammar; the latter is language use. Generative grammarians steadfastly
have maintained that performance is not a linguistic concern. Consequently, they are not
interested in how language is used in social
interaction. The theory therefore does not
account for local and cultural variations of
18
pects of
of mind
displays
I.
as a natural
some obvious
as-
He
be-
(See Chapter 2.)
elements of language and mind are
universal and available for discovery.
He
is
analytical in approach,
seeking inherent
mechanisms of mind. However, in fulfilling his
view of the individual as distinctly human and
creative, he follows actional assumptions.
He
strongly believes in the a priori nature of knowl-
edge and that
much knowledge
is tacit
or im-
He follows the notion that knowledge
from an application of innate categories
onto the world of experience. 19 In short,
Chomsky is a champion of a point of view that
has not been popular in this century
rationalism. He has revived the basic idea of
Rene Descartes of the seventeenth century, that
the mind is given its power by a priori qualities
and that knowledge arises from the use of this
plicit.
arises
language, nor does
power
in
true
ment
itself
lished?
been described as a
Chapter 2). It is
Much
chapter
is
meaning estab-
that meaningful-
may not be adequate
meaning. Trace theory
itself
it is
controversial
uncertainty exists, of course, about
Innatism
is
although
its
a position that
strength
lies in
grammar.
cannot be proved,
the fact that
we
it
has
already have
pointed out, alternative explanations of lan-
guage acquisition have failed. Even if basic language mechanisms are innate, we are far from
understanding their nature or
(Boston:
,
by
not yet been disproved. As
grammar generally igNoam Chomsky: A Philosophical Overview
Rules and Representations
shown
the innatist arguments of generative
its scope and its validity.
problems of scope warrant discussion
Twayne Publishers, 1975), p. 182.
Chomsky discusses features of his epistemology
has
and sketchy.
Its
here. First, generative
19.
deal of disagree-
20.
grammar has its weaknesses. Basicalgrammar has been criticized on
18. Justin Leiber,
good
presents an answer, but as yet
fronts,
Two
A
for the establishment of
generative
two
Chomsky
yet deep analysis
(see
and behavioristic linguistics
major strengths are usually
seen as its parsimony and explanatory power.
However, language presents us with one of our
most difficult intellectual puzzles, and even
ly,
validity.
ness cannot reside strictly at the surface level,
tions that classical
generative
its
exists within the generative movement
about the locus of meaning. Where in the
process of sentence generation
generally praised as providing answers to ques-
could not handle.
commonly
Much of the criticism of generative grammar
questions
Grammar
linguistics has
Kuhnian revolution
account for the
speech.
understanding experience.
Chomskian
it
observed phenomenon of ungrammatical
—
Criticism of Generative
a
ignored as unimportant. 20
wishes to emphasize is the freedom of a being with
infinite and reasoned choices when so unrestrained
by external force
it is
theory of grammar, of syntax; problems of in-
how
they oper-
This criticism is discussed by John Searle, “Chomsky’s
Revolution in Linguistics,” in Harmon, On Noam Chomsky,
in
pp. 2-33.
6.
85
THEMATIC THEORIES
ate.
The
claims of generative
grammar
are
still
speculative.
processes.
cation, in fact, has isolated
“mediated” mes-
sages as a special
Transformational theory’s key problems result from the difficulty of observing generative
must
Linguists
rely
on
inferences
made from observing spoken sentences. Classimake this inferential leap
form of nonverbal code. 21
widespread application in all of
these contexts, nonverbal coding is included
here as a thematic domain.
Actually, we touch on theories of nonverbal
Because of
its
cal linguistics failed to
communication
from observed behavior to hidden processes,
and thus it fell short. As a result of its strong
reliance on inference, generative theory operates primarily from logical force (see Chapter
2). Its explanations rest on the strength of the
Here we cover five well-known theories of
nonverbal coding. The theories that relate non-
logical connections
among
inferences.
also
It
in
two
places in this book.
verbal processes specifically to interpersonal
comin Chapters 9 and 10.
Although research and writing on nonverbal
communication are copious and diverse, nonmunication are included
relies
heavily on reasoning from “residues.” In
other words, alternative explanations are attacked and shown to be inadequate. What can-
verbal scholars have not been quick to produce
theory. Judee Burgoon comments on the field:
not be disproved, the residue,
If nonverbal communication in the 1950s and 1960s
was regarded as the foundling child of the social
is taken as the
best explanation. Linguistic writings are filled
sciences
construction.
necessity,
The use of
inference, logical
and residues in the development of
is not inherently weak, and it
the only available
method
—
identifiable area
generative theory
is
—
disdained, neglected, even nameless
the
1970s marked a transition toward a legitimate and
of scholarship. An increasing consciousness and conscientiousness regarding nonver-
with demonstrations of how this or that explanation will not work in explaining a particular
for developing
bal communication was reflected in the publication
of literally thousands of articles related to it, in its
emergence as a topic for courses and textbooks, and
in its skyrocketing popularity with the lay public. 22
theory in the absence of direct observation.
to
Most
scholars
central element
may
that language is a
of human communication; yet
be verbal
(linguistic)
the term
Scholars disagree about
is.
Defining
not easy, as Randall Harrison points
The term “nonverbal communication” has been
applied to a broad range of phenomena: everything
from facial expression and gesture to fashion and
or nonverbal;
Randall Harrison, “Nonverbal Communication,”
Handbook of Communication, eds. Ithiel de sola Pool et
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973).
21.
verbal signs.
Nonverbal communication, an important
aspect of coding and messages, is a cousin area
in
al.
Judee K. Burgoon, “Nonverbal Communication Research in the 1970s: An Overview,” in Communication Yearbook 4, ed. Dan Nimmo (New Brunswick,
N.J.: Transaction Books, 1980), p. 179. In addition to this excellent
22.
to linguistics.
For this reason it has been included in this chapter. In addition, nonverbal
communication relates strongly to interpersonal communication and therefore applies to
group and organizational communication as
well. Students of mass communication are inof media.
is
out:
most communication involves messages that
contain a complex web of both verbal and non-
terested in nonverbal aspects
difficulties.
what nonverbal communication
would agree
communication involves much more than language. The signs that are used in communication
Nonverbal communication theory is difficult
summarize because it has been plagued by
conceptual
Theories of Nonverbal Communication
review, see also Mark Knapp, Nonverbal Communication in
Human Interaction (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1978); Mark Knapp, John Wiemann, and John Daly, “Nonverbal Communication: Issues and Appraisal,” Human
Communication Research, 4 (1978): 271-80; Robert G.
Harper, Arthur Wiess, and Joseph Motarozzo, Nonverbal
Communication: The State of the Art (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1978).
One
well-known textbook of nonverbal communi-
86
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
opment deal with the improvement of nonverbal
status symbol, from dance and drama to music and
mime, from the flow of affect to the flow of traffic,
from the territoriality of animals to the protocol of
diplomats, from extrasensory perception to analog
computers, and from the rhetoric of violence to the
rhetoric
of topless dancers
elements of message sending and receiving.
last
two
reveal the
.
Are
acts
The
To what
ing.
scholars
of
units
that are unintentional
tion process.
these last
chapter
problems
many of
the prominent
communication fall into
is
categories, this section of the
organized around the structure-
Structural Theories
must the meanings of acts
communication? Finally,
disagree on what constitutes meaningful
Among
the various theories of nonverbal
communication, certain structural approaches
stand out clearly. These theories can be classified according to Abne Eisenberg and Ralph
as
What kinds of signs
Since
two
function distinction.
third issue involves shared mean-
analysis.
which nonverbal messages
on the
theories of nonverbal
are to be
included in nonverbal communication?
Two
in
Functional approaches,
show how nonverbal actions are
used and how they operate in the communica-
other hand,
extent
be shared to count
ways
are structured.
communicative? Are acts that are not perceived
by a source as intended to be considered as
communication? The second issue is awareness.
Must communicators be aware of communicative acts? Or do acts of which either source,
receiver, or both are unaware count as communication?
Structural ap-
proaches classify nonverbal behavior in order to
23
.
Four major conceptual issues are evident 24
The first is intent. Are all communication acts
intentional?
The
categories are especially useful for
theories surveyed in this text.
Smith’s three-point analysis: kinesics, the study
of bodily activity; proxemics, the study of
space; and paralanguage, the study of voice 26
from these issues. First, one is never sure what to count as
nonverbal communication. Our discussion will
not take sides in this debate, but you will see
that the various theories included define somewhat different behaviors and acts as important.
Two
Second, classifying or organizing the diversity
of work in nonverbal communication presents a
theory
One of the most useful classification
schemes is that created by Judee Burgoon, who
divided the writings in this area into five
of theory on the structure of nonverbal communication.
analytical
arise
.
Birdwhistell’s kinesic
theory of proxemics.
.
The
analytic tradition.
late
first is
research in the variable
A
third representative
G. L. Trager’s on paralanguage. These
Theory of Kinesics. Ray Birdwhisone of the most important theorists and
on body movement, has led the
field of kinesics for over thirty years 27 As the
inventor of the term, he is considered the father
of kinesics. An anthropologist interested in lan-
Birdwhistell’s
This research attempts to isohow certain nonverbal vari-
tell,
and understand
ables relate to aspects
is
three views provide an excellent representation
problem.
categories 25
become
Ray
theory and Edward Hall’s
anthropological theories that have
standards in nonverbal communication are
researchers
of communication. Such
.
research tends to be experimental, behavioris-
and nonactional. Context research examines
the behavior of people in different situations,
correlating nonverbal behavior with the demands of the situation. Writings on skill devel-
tic,
23. Randall Harrison,
“Nonverbal Communication,”
Handbook of Communication, eds.
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973).
24.
Ithiel
de sola Pool et
This analysis from Burgoon, “Nonverbal
guage, Birdwhistell uses linguistics as a model
for his kinesic
in
fact, kinesics is
popu-
although
cri-
26. Abne M. Eisenberg and Ralph R. Smith, Nonverbal
Communication (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971).
al.
27. Birdwhistell’s
Communica-
major works include Introduction to
of Louisville Press, 1952);
of Pennsyl-
Kinesics (Louisville: University
tion Research.”
25.
work. In
larly referred to as body language,
Kinesics and Context (Philadelphia: University
Burgoon, “Nonverbal Communication Research.”
vania Press, 1970).
87
THEMATIC THEORIES
doubt the validity of the language analogy.
Let us look at the foundation ideas of Birdwhistics
tell’s
theory.
the most important connections
is the link between bodily
and language, called the linguistic-
activity
Communication,
complex process,
as a
is
a
multichannel phenomenon. It makes use of all
sensory channels, and a complete analysis must
encompass all channels in use. Birdwhistell describes the continuous process: “While no
single channel
in constant use,
one or more
channels are always in operation. Communication is the term which I apply to this continuous
is
process .” 28 Although developing methodologies for studying each channel is important,
the theorist must always keep an eye on the
whole. So, while Birdwhistell has concentrated
work on
the visual channel, he has also
attempted to
complex.
relate his findings to the larger
his
One of
Birdwhistell found
kinesic analogy. This analogy extends classical
linguistics into the realm of kinesics:
This original study of gestures gave the
first indication that kinesic structure is parallel to language
structure. By the study of gestures in context, it
became clear that the kinesic system has forms which
are astonishingly like words in language. The dis-
covery in turn led to the investigation of the components of these forms and to the discovery of the
larger
complexes of which they were components.
... It has become clear that there are body behaviors
which function like significant sounds, that combine into simple or relatively complex units like
words, which are combined into much longer
stretches of structured behavior like sentences or
even paragraphs. 30
The
In Kinesics and Context Birdwhistell lists
seven assumptions on which he bases his
kinesics to that
theory.
problem of the
of living physiological systems those groupings of movement which are
of significance to the communicational process
and thus to the interactional systems of particu-
While the possible limitations imposed by particu-
lar social
recognized, until other-
wise demonstrated, the systematic body motion of
members of a community is considered a function of the social system to which the group belongs.
the
Visible
ity,
body
systematically influences the behavior of other
particular group.
Until otherwise demonstrated such behavior will
be considered to have an investigable communi-
other words,
range of such behavior .” 32 In
a range of motions or posi-
motion or
position.
A
perceptible movement of the eyelid or a turn of
the hand are examples of kines. What is defined
as a kine in one cultural group may not be in
investigated.
7. The particular biological system and the
special
experience of any individual will contribute
idiosyncratic elements to his kinesic system, but the
individual or symptomatic quality of these elements
can only be assessed following the analysis of the
larger system of which he is a part. 29
life
another. Kines are further
grouped into kinemes,
elements that display differential communicative function. Like the phoneme in linguistics,
28. Birdwhistell, Kinesics, p. 70.
Ibid., pp.
it is
tions seen as a single
are functions
both of the behavior and of the operations by which
29.
communication. Such movements are
trast to a different
cational function.
it is
tional in
“A kine is an abstraction of that
range of behavior produced by a member of a
given social group which, for another member
of that same group, stands in perceptual con-
members of any
The meanings derived therefrom
groups .” 31 Out of the thousands of
perceptible bodily motions produced in a short
period of time, certain of these emerge as funccalled kines:
activity, like audible acoustic activ-
5.
6.
which
are characteristics
Like other aspects of human behavior, body posture, movement, and facial expression are patterned
and, thus, subject to systematic analysis.
4.
is similar to that of the
concerned with abstract-
ing from the continuous muscular shifts
2.
lar biological substrata are
kinesicist
linguist: “Kinesics is
1. Like other events in nature, no body
movement
or expression is without meaning in the context in
which it appears.
3.
of hierarchical structure in
of linguistics is striking. The
similarity
183-84.
30.
Ibid., p. 80.
31.
Ibid., p. 192.
32. Ibid., p. 193.
88
,
.
,
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
the
kineme
able kines.
a group of relatively interchangeFor example, up to twenty-three
use of senses in interaction and interpersonal
is
Another reason
distances.
of the eyelids may be
discerned, but they can be grouped into about
four kinemes. Kinemes, like phonemes, occur
in context. A complex combination of kinemes
throughout the body may be called a kinemorph.
different positions (kines)
tions vary
among
tion of the
self.
that
proxemic
rela-
cultures involves the defini-
People in most western cultures
through the skin and
however, place the self deeper in
learn to identify the self
clothes. Arabs,
the middle of the body.
For these reasons, then, the people of a parHall’s Theory of Proxemics
If Birdwhistell is the
ticular culture structure their space in particular
of kinesics, Edward Hall is surely the
father of proxemics. 33 Hall shares the view of
his fellow anthropologist Birdwhistell that
communication is a multichannel affair. Hall
believes that just as language varies from cul-
ways. Hall defines three basic types of space.
Fixed-feature space consists of the unmovable
structural arrangements around us. Walls and
father
ture to culture,
so
do the other
rooms
are examples. Semifixed feature space
way
the
interacting
that
movable obstacles such
ture are arranged. Informal space
is
media. Specifically, proxemics refers to the use
of space in communication. “Proxemics is the
territory
term
sonal distance between individuals.
specific definition
is
of culture.” 34
“the study of
unconsciously structures microspace
tance between
men
in
with
a
American
culture utilizes four discernible distances: inti-
A more
mate (zero to eighteen inches), personal (one
and one-half to four feet), social (four to twelve
feet), and public (over twelve feet).
When people are engaged in conversation,
how man
— the
that travels
person. Informal space determines the interper-
have coined for the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a
I
specialized elaboration
around the body
is
as furni-
the personal
dis-
conduct of daily transof space in his houses
actions, the organization
eight possible factors are involved in the dis-
and buildings, and ultimately the layout of his
towns.” 35 Although this definition of proxemics is broad, most of the work in the area has
been limited to the use of interpersonal space.
These definitions make clear that the way
tance between them. Hall
space
is
used in interaction
is
very
much
lists
these factors as
primary categories:
1.
Posture-sex factors:
These include the sex of
the participant and the basic position (standing,
sitting, lying).
a cul-
tural matter. In different cultures various sen-
2.
sory modalities assume importance. In
some
implies discouragement of interaction; sociopetal
American, sight and hearother cultures, such as the
implies the opposite. This dimension refers to
cultures, such as the
ing predominate; in
Arabian, smell
rely
is
also important.
on touching more than do
case, a necessary relation
is
Some
person.
any
3.
The Hidden Dimension,
p.
may
be facing each other,
is
the closeness of the
be in physical contact or within close
distance, they
may
be outside body contact dis-
may be positioned anywhere in
between these extremes. This factor also includes the positioning of body parts as well as
which parts are touching.
tance, or they
22 (1972): 443-59.
“A System
Kinesthetic factors: This
uals
Directions in Proxemic Research,” Journal of Communica-
Hall,
may
individuals in terms of touch-ability. Individ-
Random House, 1966). Excellent summaries can be found
in Eisenberg and Smith, Nonverbal Communication
pp.
85-88; Knapp, Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, pp. 186—90; and O. Michael Watson, “Conflicts and
35.
speakers
be back to back, or may be positioned
toward any other angle in the radius.
Edward Hall’s major works include Silent Language
(Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1959); “A System for the
Notation of Proxemic Behavior,” American Anthropologist
65 (1963): 1003-26; and The Hidden Dimension (New York:
34. Hall,
The
may
present between the
33.
tion,
sociofugal
the angle of the shoulders relative to the other
cultures
others. In
The word
Sociofugal-sociopetal axis:
1.
for Notation,” p. 1003.
4.
89
Touching behavior: People
may
be involved
THEMATIC THEORIES
in
any of the following
tactile relations: caress-
excellent general
model of nonverbal signs. 37
their work on kinesic
ing and holding, feeling, prolonged holding,
They have concentrated
pressing against, spot touching, accidental
brushing, or no contact.
behavior (for example, face and hands). Their
goal has been ambitious: “Our aim has been to
Visual code: This category includes the manner of eye contact ranging from direct (eye-to-
increase understanding of the individual,
5.
feelings,
Thermal code: This element involves the perceived heat from the other communicator.
Olfactory code: This factor includes the kind
and degree of odor perceived in the conver-
7.
sation.
Voice loudness:
The loudness of speech
relates
directly to interpersonal space.
Paralanguage.
behavior
is
The
third category
of nonverbal
paralanguage, or the use of vocal
signs in communication.
but
It
raising as a response to surprise
known
work
in this area
is
is
innate, that
territoriality is species constant,
and that shaking the head back and forth to indicate no is
culture specific.
language but are not included directly
in language. Trager’s
well
personality,
across cultures, groups, and individuals. As
examples, one could speculate that eyebrow
forms the borderline
between the verbal and nonverbal aspects of
interaction. The sounds we make in speaking
relate to
his
and attitudes, and
of any given interpersonal interaction, the nature of the relationship,
the status or quality of communication, what
impressions are formed, and what is revealed
about interpersonal style or skill.” 38
These authors have approached nonverbal
activity from three perspectives: origin, coding,
and usage. Origin is the source of an act. A
nonverbal behavior may be innate (built into
the nervous system), species constant (universal
behavior required for survival), or variant
6.
8.
mood,
to increase understanding
no contact.
eye) to
not as
as the other theories in the chapter,
Coding
an important contribution to our understanding. 36 Trager divides paralinguistic
is
the relationship of the act to
its
An
act may be arbitrary, that is, no
meaning is inherent in the sign
Head nodding is a good example. By
meaning.
it is
indication of
cues into four types: voice qualities, vocal characterizes, vocal qualifiers, and vocal segre-
itself.
gates.
range, quality of articulation (forceful or re-
ding is an indication of yes, but this coding is
purely arbitrary. Other nonverbal signs are
and rhythm. Vocal characterizers include
such noises as laughing, crying, yelling, yawn-
nified.
Voice qualities include
such cues
convention, in our culture
as pitch
laxed),
ing, spitting, belching.
36.
uttered.
Iconic signs resemble
iconic.
agree that nod-
what
is
being sig-
For instance, we often draw pictures in
the air or position our hands to illustrate what
Vocal qualifiers include
manner
the
we
in which words and phrases are
For example, a word may be spoken
with high pitch; a phrase may be
we
are talking about.
coding
softly or
is intrinsic.
The
of
coded cues con-
third category
Intrinsically
meaning within them; such cues are
themselves part of what is being signified. Crying is an example of intrinsic coding. Crying is
tain their
drawled or clipped. Finally, vocal segregates include the rhythmic factors that contribute to the
flow of speech: “uh,” “um,” pauses, and other
Ekman and Friesen’s major works include “Nonverbal
in Psychotherapy Research,” in Research in
J. Shlien, vol. Ill (Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association, 1968); “The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage,
and Coding.” Semiotica, 1 (1969): 49-98; Emotion in the
37.
interruptions of rhythm.
Behavior
Psychotherapy, ed.
Functional Theories
Ekman and
Paul
rated
Friesen.
Ekman and
For nearly twenty years
Human
Wallace Friesen have collabo-
on nonverbal research
G. L. Trager, “Paralanguage:
A
First
Face:
Findings
that has led to an
Face
Approximation,”
38.
Studies in Linguistics, 13 (1958): 1-12.
(New
Guidelines for Research and an Integration of
York: Pergamon Press, 1972); Unmasking the
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975).
(Englewood
Paul
Ekman and
Wallace Friesen,
“Hand Movements,”
Journal of Communication, 22 (1972): 353.
90
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL CODING
a sign of emotion, but
emotion itself.
The
third
way
it
is
also part
of the
outlining space),
by
tions), pictographs
to analyze a behavior
is
rhythmic movements (pacing
motions), kinetographs (depicting physical ac-
usage. This category includes variables related
to circumstances.
involves such factors as
It
.
external conditions around the behavior,
awareness or nonawareness of the act, reactions
from
others, and the type
veyed.
A
of information con-
helpful subanalysis of usage
(drawing a picture in the air),
and emblematic movements (illustrating a verbal
statement) These types are not mutually exclusive; some motions are combinations of types.
Illustrators are informative or
communicative
may
be interactive.
and occasionally
in use
degree to which a nonverbal behavior is intended to convey information. A communicative
They are also learned.
The third type of nonverbal behavior is the
adaptor, which serves to facilitate release of
is
the
one used deliberately to convey meaning.
bodily tension. Such actions as hand wringing,
Interactive acts are those that influence the behavior of the other participants. An act will be
both communicative and interactive if it is in-
head scratching, or foot jiggling are examples
of adaptors. Self-adaptors which usually occur
tentional and influential. For example, if
They may
act
is
deliberately
wave
,
in
you
to a friend as a sign of greet-
ing and the friend waves back, your cue
would
other’s body.
things. In
to avoid
way.
may duck
haviors.
meeting an acquaintance coming your
person sees the avoidance,
is
If the other
type
social
is
the
of
group.
sage.
The
are
normally used
communicate
“V” and the black power fist
The origin of emblems is cultural
emblems may be either arbitrary or
The
tions.
the second kind of nonverbal
They
are intentional,
though
is
cultural learning.
final
The
face
is
particularly rich for affect
display, although other parts
of the body also
may
have a high relation to speech
since they are used to illustrate what is being
They
Regulators are primarily interactive.
coded intrinsically or iconically, and
category of behavior is the affect
These behaviors, which may be in part
innate, involve the display of feelings and emo-
cues. Illustrators
may
communica-
display.
iconic in coding.
said verbally.
are rarely
are
their origin
victory
Illustrators are
is
the person
they are sometimes interactive and often
sation.
They
mes-
are examples.
learning;
the individual
when
Regulators, the fourth type of behavior, are
used directly to regulate, control, or coordinate
interaction. For example, we use eye contact to
signal speaking and listening roles in a conver-
in a delib-
a particular
Although they
alone.
tive,
emblem. Emblems have a verbal
meaning for a
erate fashion to
be iconic or
informative.
a rather precise
They
are directed at
may
They may occur when
occur with greater frequency
All nonverbal behavior is one of five types,
depending on origin, coding, and usage. The
first
case, adaptors
communicating with another, but they usually
into a hallway
your behavior has been informative even
though you did not intend to communicate.
translation
Object-adaptors
any
Rarely are they intentional, and one is
usually not aware of one’s own adaptive be-
that nevertheless provide
than friendly, you
body.
groom-
intrinsic.
information for the perceiver. Such acts are said
to be informative. On a day when you are feeling
less
include scratching, stroking,
ing, squeezing. Alter-adaptors are directed to an-
be communicative and interactive. A third category of behaviors are those not intended to be
communicative but
own
are directed to one’s
private,
be involved. Affect displays are intrinsically coded. They are rarely communicative,
we
often interactive, and always informative.
not always be directly aware of them.
include eight types: batons
(movements
Dittmann’s Theory of Emotional Communication. Allen Dittmann provides an important
functional theory of emotional communication. His theory has three parts: emotional
that accent or emphasize), ideographs (“sketch-
ing” the direction of
a
thought),
deictic
move-
ments (pointing), spatial movements (depicting or
91
THEMATIC THEORIES
information, emotion signs, and channels for
communicating emotion
Following the
tion,
39
.
classical
definition
of emoterms of
Dittmann explains emotion in
That is, whether perceived
behavioral deviation.
by
self or others, an
deviation from
judge
emotional expression
some
baseline behavior.
person’s emotion
a
the behavior
is
different
is
a
We
to be perceived. This
ceptance
rience with universal behavior patterns, cultural
placed in the category
the
affect display.
in
to
to see
variable forms
two continuums, with
laughter.
The final division of Dittmann’s theory deals
with channels of emotional communication. In
any face-to-face interaction a number of modal-
meaning and tend
to express one’s feeling in idiosyncratic terms.
In our culture shrugging the shoulders is a sign
The second dimension
fails
has a strong urge to laugh in an inappropriate
setting and fakes a cough to cover up the
municative cues are relatively specific in terms
of what they relay to the perceiver. Messages at
a
so slight that the listener
fail
perhaps
tions are controlled and monitored. (As in the
case of the other factors, intentional control is
always a matter of degree.) A good illustration
of an extreme case of control is when a person
variable, communicative speccontinuum between the extremes of
communication and expression. Messages on
the communication end of this spectrum possess “coded” or agreed-upon meaning. Comfirst
ificity, is a
of uncertainty, possessing
communicative specificity.
Or
The third dimension of the emotional message is intentional control. In some circumstances a person tends to express feeling
fully and spontaneously. At other times emo-
of awareness, and intentional
control. These variables extend Ekman and
Friesen’s concept of sign use.
specificity, level
the other end have less social
is
might
the listener
frown and
other.
His analysis
contains three major factors: communicative
The
moment,
awareness as one extreme and either repressed
unconscious or subliminal unconscious as the
the nature of emotional signs?
Dittmann provides a useful and interesting
is
of nonverbal
frown
this
havioral deviation being observed.
analysis
that
it because it is subliminal. At the other
end of
the scale, however, the listener might be mildly
or strongly aware of the frown. In summary,
(fear,
anger, sadness, and so forth) that the perceiver
has learned to associate with the particular be-
What
is psychologically
not strong enough
realize the other speaker’s dislike.
well as the observed person’s idiosyncratic behavioral patterns. Once emotional expression is
is
at
repress awareness of the
expression, and social structure, as
it
is
dimension of awareness
can apply to either the sender, the receiver, or
both. Suppose in a conversation a speaker is
expressing dislike for another person by a slight
frown. If the listener has a strong need for ac-
knowledge of baseline behavior
in relation to various situations in which emotions occur. Such knowledge stems from expeintuitive
perceived,
Either the behavior
repressed, or the stimulus
seen in this individual and culture. This explaof course, assumes that people have
modes of
the other is either subliminal unconscious or
repression. A person may be more or less aware
of a particular behavior. If the behavior is done
without awareness, one of two conditions
exists:
on the basis of how
from what is usually
nation,
some
level of awareness, actually is two variables. On
one end of the spectrum is full awareness; on
ities
high degree of
are used.
of behaviors
We know
is
that a rich assortment
communicated
in the
form of
bodily activity, space, voice, and so forth. In an
ongoing conversation these behaviors blend together into a kind of gestalt image. Certain
Dittmann’s model,
39. Allen T. Dittmann, Interpersonal Messages
of Emotion
(New York: Springer Publishing, 1972). Dittmann’s approach is based on information theory, which we will not
pursue here. See chaps. 2 and 3. Information theory is
covered separately in this book in Chapter 7.
behaviors will be more salient for the receiver
than others, depending on the situation and cul-
Thus the primary channel of emotional
communication in a given conversation deture.
92
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
AND NONVERBAL CODING
pends on what the receiver perceives from the
strongly to approach a synthetic topic in an
complex
analytic way by focusing on particular behaviors to the exclusion of others. Again, this
Dittmann describes three
stimuli.
broad classifications of channels: audible, visual, and psychophysiological. Audible channels
problem
include language and paralanguage; visual channels include facial
expression and body
one of appropriateness and scope.
is
Finally, there
move-
is
the fallacy of nonverbal preemi-
Nonverbal communication is often assumed to be the most important aspect of any
message. Language is reduced to a lesser role.
Some writers on nonverbal communication
have actually stated as much 41 Most, however,
imply undue importance by separating and
concentrating on aspects of nonverbal codes
apart from the entire coding complex. In most
nence.
ment; psychophysiological channels are those cues
emanating from bodily functions (for example,
breathing, eyeblinking, and so forth).
.
Criticism
Certainly the
work of nonverbal communica-
tion has helped us realize the complexity
and
communication codes. The various
categories suggested by theory have been
transactions language
producing an impressive quantity of
research. The major problems of nonverbal
varies
subtlety of
communication theories
lie
com-
munication process and in their narrowness of
scope 40
theories to separate and classify bodily activity.
The
functional approaches tend to be less segmental in their treatment of verbal and nonver-
.
We
can express the major criticism of these
theories as a series
of
fallacies.
fallacy of the linguistic analogy.
superficial
similarities
tween language and
may
The
first is
the
bal codes.
Although some
The attempt to move from finite description
of nonverbal communication behavior to an
explanation of how it functions in ongoing in-
be observed be-
kinesics,
probably more
differences than similarities exist.
Language
teraction
is
presented sequentially and involves discrete
signs; nonverbal codes are not presented solely
in a sequential
work
is
is
manner and rarely consist of
Although language is organo good evidence shows
a necessary step. Yet this
a
is
what functions
problem.
functions
way
may
fore the theoretical
we
by nonverbal
moment several
more comprehensive theory is
nonverbal communication. Heretowork has been fragmented
needed
always used consciously; nonverbal
may
any given
we know
In short, a
(despite Birdwhistell’s linguisticlike categories).
sumptions of language
at
can
be involved.
Language
codes often are not. Thus
How
are being served
behaviors? Indeed,
nized hierarchically,
is
kind of
fraught with difficulties. First, accurate
observation
discrete behaviors.
that nonverbal acts are organized in this
absolutely central, but
from situation to situation.
These fallacies are especially apparent in
structural theories of nonverbal communication, and they arise from the tendency of such
in their appropri-
ateness for explaining intricacies of the
is
the relative importance of any part of the code
heuristic in
in
and limited. The functional theories take a step
even these could be
more comprehensive in considering the larger
issue of coordinated coding in general.
see that the as-
not be appropriate
in the right direction, but
domain of nonverbal behavior.
The second problem is the fallacy of analysis.
Most of the structural theorists admit that mesto the
sages consist of inseparable complexes of verbal
and nonverbal codes, yet these theories tend
What Do We Know about Language and
Nonverbal Coding?
Of all the communication domains language
and meaning are perhaps the most elusive; yet
For a more complete analysis and critique of several
approaches to nonverbal communication, see Judee Burgoon and Thomas Saine, The Unspoken Dialogue: An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1978), chap. 2. See also Knapp, Wiemann, and
Daly, “Nonverbal Communication.”
40.
41. A.
Mehrabian, “Communication without Words,”
Psychology Today, 2 (1968): 51-52.
93
THEMATIC THEORIES
lie at the heart of communication
symbolic activity. Earlier simplistic models
of language no longer are considered adequate
ironically they
language
is strictly a learned behavior. Rather,
they believe that children are born with an in-
as a
to explain
how
language
is
acquired and
nate
how
organizing link
the
among semantic units,
is
how
this
it is
still
Although
several notions
addition to our
it
key element of language. Generally acamong linguists today is the belief that
the generation and reception of sentences can-
reveals about the coding complex.
not occur on the surface level alone. Deeper
coding processes must be examined. Unfortu-
linguistic cues.
from certain what these
deep processes are. The mainstream of linguistic thought states that sentences are created and
understood by the use of a parsimonious set of
rules that can be combined in numerous ways
to create or understand an infinite number of
bodily, and spatial cues.
Few
also
linguistics
set
of vocal,
facial,
Some communication
all.
Clearly, nonverbal elements of
communica-
tion are highly functional, relating emotional
meaning,
management,
and releasing tension. Nonverbal cues also
augment the linguistic code, adding nuance to
the meaning of verbal messages.
remains an unstill
are not uttered in isola-
of a bigger
takes place without language at
sentences.
Language acquisition
Words
tion but are part
nately, linguists are far
solved puzzle.
of
unknown.
Nonverbal communication is an important
body of theory because of what
Although
language is the essence of communication,
meanings are communicated by messages that
consist of a complex set of linguistic and non-
vital in
communication of meaning. Therefore
centered on syntax
cepted
linguistic structure that enables
process occurs have been posed, basically
speed.
much work in linguistics has
as the
model of
the child to acquire a native language with great
Meaning is not simply a matter of individual word
denotations and connotations. Grammar, as an
sentences are generated and understood.
believe that
94
facilitating interaction
CHAPTER
6
One cannot logically separate the topics of language and nonverbal communication from
Theories
of Meaning
for his work in literary criticism and rhetorical
theory. His lifelong pursuit of improving
communication led him to consider the nature
of words, meanings, and understandings in all
kinds of discourse. In the introduction to The
meaning. Meaning is the concept that connects
symbols with human beings. It is an elusive
theme, of which several interpretations exist.
The theories presented in this section attempt to
describe or explain this concept. For purposes
Philosophy of Rhetoric he writes,
“We struggle all
our days with misunderstandings, and no apology is required for any study which can prevent
or remove them.” 2
For Richards language is a system of signs
that, because of its centrality to human life, is
supremely important as a field of study. A sign
is anything that stands for something else. It
of discussion, these theories are divided into
several groups according to similar assumptions
and claims: representational theories, ordinary
language philosophy, and experiential theories.
Representational Theories of Meaning
The first sense of meaning is representational.
Here meaning is seen as the “representation” of
elicits in
an object, event, or condition by a sign. Each
theory in this section explains how signs are
munication, language signs are designated spe-
used to stand for things in the minds of people.
The first theory is that of I. A. Richards.
Richards
shows how three elements the sym1.
To aid in understanding the nature of symbol
meaning, Richards and Ogden developed their
famous triangle of meaning, illustrated in Figure 6.1. 3 This model stresses three senses of
meaning: meaning in the symbol (What does
bol, the referent,
and the person
—
—
interrelate in
A closely related approach, which stresses the conception of the
referent in the person, is that of Suzanne
The
the
meaning of this
in the
thing?),
referent
and mean-
University Press, 1936); Principles of Literary Criticism (New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952). For excellent summaries of
meaning
of I. A. Richards and his colleague C. K.
in The Meaning of Meaning, later elaborated by Richards in other works. 1 Richards, a
scholar in the field of English, was most noted
that
Richards’s work, see Marie Hochmuth Nichols, “1. A.
Richards and the New Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech
Ogden
ing
the
tween the symbol and the thought or the referent and the thought, the relationship between
the symbol and the referent is indirect. It is an
within the person.
to
is
ing in the person (What does this mean to
you?). While there is a direct relationship be-
of the semantic theory of Charles Osgood,
which attempts to define the nature of meaning
is
word mean?), meaning
(What
section concludes with a discussion
The Approach of Richards
One of the best known approaches
image of a broader con-
cially as symbols.
establishing meaning.
Langer.
the person an
which the sign was originally perceived.
Further, as instruments of thought and comtext in
44 (1958): 1-16; Marie Hochmuth Nichols, Rhetoric and
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,
1963), chap. 7; Richard L. Johannesen, ed. Contemporary
Theories of Rhetoric (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pt. 3.
Criticism
C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Mean(London: Regan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1923). I. A.
(New York: Oxford
Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric
95
2.
Richards, Philosophy of Rhetoric,
3.
Ogden and
p. 3.
Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, p.
11.
THEMATIC THEORIES
arbitrary relationship that holds only because of
the
common
denominator of thought
word
person. Let’s use the
The
cat as
share a certain degree of past experience. This
general aim exists for both emotive and scien-
in the
an example.
tific
three elements include the animal itself (re-
ferent),
the
symbol
image of the animal
mind when
the
the
ings and attitudes; with scientific description
that arises in the person’s
one hopes to elicit an accurate and factual image. According to Richards, rhetorical criticism
must involve the detailed study of words and
the ways these kinds of understandings occur.
In short, it must become a science of meanings
in communication.
word
is
heard.
The connection
between the sign and the referent can only
occur through the image of the animal in the
person. The relationship between cat and the
actual thing is therefore indirect, even though
either will elicit the thought in the person.
With this basic three-way distinction as a
base, Richards discusses the
is
used.
When
it is
communication. With emotive discourse
communicator hopes to elicit similar feel-
and the thought or
cat,
ways
Richards’s most valuable contribution is his
notion that the important meaning is in the per-
The relationship between the person and
symbol is arbitrary and is mediated by the
thought of the person. Thus communication
that language
used primarily to
son.
communi-
the
of the referent, the statement is
scientific. When language is used primarily to
communicate one’s feeling about something, it
is emotive. And in the middle is a mixed range of
statements. In any'case communication is an
attempt to elicit meanings in another person.
The goal of communication is to create a similar
mental experience in the other, a goal that can
be achieved only when the communicators
cate description
must be viewed
ings, not giving
great impact
cation.
It is
as a process of eliciting meanmeanings. This thesis has had a
on the study of human communia view that has been promoted by
each of the theories in this section.
discussion of this notion
is
that
A
further
of Suzanne
Langer.
Langer’s Theory of Symbols
One of the most important topics of philosophy
Thought or reference
in the past century has been the relationship
between language and meaning. It is clear that
any investigation of knowledge or epistemology must include a view of these central issues.
A most useful concept of language is that of
Suzanne Langer, whose Philosophy in a New Key
has received considerable attention by students
of symbolism 4
Langer considers symbolism to be the key
issue of philosophy, an issue that underlies all
human knowing and understanding: “So our
interest in the mind has shifted more and more
from the acquisition of experience, the domain
of sense, to the uses of sense-data, the realm of
conception and expression .” 5 All animal life is
.
4. Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1942). See also Mind: An Essay on
Feeling (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press), vol. 1,
From The Meaning
of Meaning, by C. K. Ogden and I. A.
Richards. Copyright
1923. Reprinted by permission of
©
Human
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich and Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Figure 6.1.
Ogden and
1967; vol. 2, 1972.
Richards’s meaning triangle.
5.
96
Langer, Philosophy
in a
New
Key,
p. 26.
THEORIES OF MEANING
dominated by
feeling,
but
human
feeling in-
Like Richards, Langer conceives of meaning
cludes the additional ability to conceive of ob-
relation among the symbol, the
and the person. As she puts it: “If there
one thing meant and one mind for
which it is meant, then there is not a complete
symbols and language.
Langer distinguishes between signs and
symbols, using sign in a narrower sense than
did our discussion in the last chapter. For her a
sign
is
a stimulus that indicates the presence
something
object,
not
is
corresponds highly with the
actual signified event or object. A symbol is
more complex: “Symbols are not proxy of their
The
Symbols allow a person to think about
something apart from its immediate presence.
Langer therefore calls the symbol “an instrument of thought .” 7 We can see how this idea
We
Not only do people have an
basic need to symbolize apart
of
necessities
living.
.
we
call
life,
it
accurately that
against
practical
human
is
nestled
—
—
tion, logical entailment, the propositional structure
that is inherent in the conception of fact, and
the correlative, largely emotional disposition of the
whole mind, belief. The depth to which the influence
of language goes in the organization of our perception and apperception becomes more impressive the
of ideas
which makes symbols out of
little
as
further one pursues
it
11
.
its
How,
forms .” 8
Elsewhere in this book we have treated
kind of sign. Langer uses the term sign more
Ibid., p. 61.
as a
brown dog
lowing passage:
more
in
little
9.
Language
draws so many other mental functions into
its orbit
very deep and phylogenetically ancient
processes of emotive and instinctive character
and
lifts them from their animalian state to a new, peculiarly human level. It also engages all sorts of higher,
larger cortical mechanisms, producing distinct forms
of memory, sequences of recall, logical contradic-
response
necessary to examine
The
my foot.
makes us human.
Through language we communicate, we think,
and we feel. The significance of discursive
symbolism in human life is captured in the fol-
osition
6.
symbols
complex symbol
In this sense language truly
— out of marks on paper, the
we interpret
‘words,’ or
knees — the quality of meaning,
several aspects and
a
unified picture:
anything
bended
is
of something. The word
its combination
with other words in a proposition provides a
has a
Further, the symbol-
squeaks and grunts
proposition
increased ca-
and exhibit the respective
,
is
A
that presents a picture
conceptions of symbolism [lan-
ritual]
.
dog brings up a conception, but
Langer calls ritual. In the following passage
Langer indicates the importance of studying
meaning in symbolism: “In order to relate these
distinct
.
bolic role.
behavior in terms of meeting the symbolic
need. Symbolic acts involve speech (the use of
language) and nonverbal symbolization, which
two
Words name
grammatical structure plays an important sym-
of
go
making process is a continuous function in humans tantamount to eating and sleeping. We
therefore must explain a good deal of human
guage and
discourse.
they assert nothing, preclude nothing
say nothing .” 10 By tying words together,
tions,
human
from the
parts they play in that general
of language, however,
things, but “before terms are built into proposi-
signs and symbols momentarily. First, let’s
back to the broader issue of human mentality.
pacity to use symbols, but the
real significance
not in words, but in
is
Richards’s idea of meaning
will return to the function
and
and referent and the psychological the relation
between the symbol and the person.
jects .” 6
Ogden and
a logical
psychological sense of symbol meaning, the
logical being the relation between the symbol
objects, but are vehicles for the conception of ob-
supports
at least
meaning .” 9 Thus we have both
of
else. It
in the person.
complex
as the
jects in their absence via
concept
narrowly.
then, does language
communicates
is
Ibid., p. 56.
7.
Ibid., p. 63.
10.
8.
Ibid., p. 52.
11. Langer,
97
a
work? Any propconcept. The
form
common
the general idea, pattern, or
Ibid., p. 67.
Mind,
p. 324.
THEMATIC THEORIES
embodied by a proposition. It is, in short,
common meaning among communicators. But
each communicator also will have a private
image or meaning, which fills in the details of
the common picture. This private image is the
person’s conception. Meaning therefore consists
concept:
“A concept
conveys. But just
symbolized to
it
up
us,
is all
that a
symbol
own
mal,
,
which we
is
ing the presence of
is
a
meaning of a
Earlier
we mentioned
that
two important
types of symbols involve language and ritual.
Langer
denota-
sign.
A
tion
sign,
these discursive and presenta-
labels
symbols involve the combinaof smaller units (for example, words and
some
phrases) into larger ones.
to
its
The
is
the
complex
Individual
word
meanings are combined into larger concepts.
Such symbols are linguistic. In presentational
symbolism individual units may not have distinct meaning. Such forms may not be translat-
object. Signification
one-to-one relationship between
of the symbol
details in the
conception.
simple stimulus announc-
sign and object. Denotation
tion
more
tional. Discursive
the
as defined earlier, is a
therefore
puppy, but
little
hierarchy of abstraction, each
a
successive term leaving out
tion, connotation.
Signification
always leaves some-
which is an animal an animal is a living
which is an object. All of these terms can
they constitute
is
of abstraction .” 12 Three terms help to
explain Langer’s ideas: signification,
it
be used to symbolize the furry
imagination dresses
in a private, personal conception
incomplete;
is
;
thing,
can distinguish from the public concept only by
a process
conception, a connotation, but this con-
The more abstract the symbol, the
more sketchy the conception: A dog is a mam-
really
quickly as the concept
as
our
a
thing out.
common
of the individual’s conception and the
For example, the word dog brings to
situation.
mind
ception
rela-
object via the concep-
of a symbol
is the direct relationship between the symbol
and the conception itself. For example, the denotation of the symbol dog is its relation to the
fluffy little pup at my feet. This relationship
occurs only in my mind through conception.
able or definable in other terms.
Even when
While other philosophers have excluded presentational forms from rationality, Langer believes that all experience, including thought
(discursive symbolism) and feeling (presentational symbolism), is rational. Some of the
14.
most important human experiences are emotional and are best communicated through presentational forms such as art and music. Langer
summarizes her quest in the following passage:
“The continual pursuit of meanings wider,
tion in the person.
the
puppy
is
The meanings
of presentational forms are understood only
through the whole. Nonverbal rituals and
forms constitute “a simultaneous integral pre-
connotation
not present,
I
sentation .” 14
of it because of the relationship between the
symbol and conception the connotation of the
word. Connotation includes all of one’s personal feelings and associations attached to a
symbol.
Langer notes that humans possess a built-in
tendency to abstract. Abstraction, which leads to
the ability to deal with concepts, is a crucial
human function. It is the essence of rationality.
Consistent with her notion of meaning, Langer
defines abstraction as “a process of recognizing
the concept in any configuration given to experience, and forming a conception according-
—
ly .” 13
Ibid., pp. 71-72.
13.
Ibid., p. 72.
commence-
clearer,
more
meanings
—
tal
sometimes
life;
is
negotiable,
philosophy.
in
It
more
articulate
permeates
all
men-
conscious form of
metaphysical thought, sometimes in the
is a process of leaving out
conceiving of an object, event, or
12.
Catholic mass or
illustrates this idea.
—
Abstraction
details in
A
ment ceremony
can think
free,
confident manipulation of established ideas to
derive their
more
and sometimes
Ibid., p. 97.
98
—
precise, detailed implications,
in the greatest creative peri-
THEORIES OF MEANING
ods
—
in the form of passionate mythical,
and devotional expression.” 15
to
ritual,
respond to the new stimulus in the same way
For example, Pavlov’s dog learned
as to the old.
to salivate to the
Osgood’s Theory of Meaning
The other theories in this section
ing in terms of the association
bol and
its
Osgood
referent.
new S-R
meanbetween a symdefine
learning
how
basic association process
and to isolate the psychological dimensions of connotation. As a behaviorist Osgood
is especially interested in how meanings are
learned and how they relate to internal and ex-
He
on the semantic
is
well
known
differential,
a
the internal (s-r) level.
is
somewhat
complex.
He
proposes
a three-stage
behavioral model,
illustrated in Figure 6.2. 17 This model can be
used to analyze any behavior, but he applies it
to language and
approach of Chomsky, which was
reviewed in the last chapter.
meaning
in particular.
Three
basic processes are involved: encoding (receiving
stimuli),
Osgood’s theory, you
sponses),
may need
a little background in learning theory.
follows the classical learning tradition,
which teaches that learning is a process of de-
association
(pairing stimuli and re-
and decoding (responding). These
processes occur on one of three levels, depending on the complexity of the behavior involved.
Osgood
The projection
level is the simple neural pathway
system between sensor and effector organs. Be-
internal or external behavioral
In this tradition learning theory
havior on this level
is
begins with the assumption that individuals respond to stimuli in the environment. The link
jerks and eye blinks.
between stimulus and response
often referred
On
Most learning theorists such as Osgood agree that predispositions in the individ-
link
is
this
Osgood’s model of this
internal-external relationship
structural
new
more complex
responsible for the
sponse, the lowercase letters 5 and r designate
the internal representation. Meaning occurs on
should explain the interaction between language and other human activity. Clearly his
approach differs significantly from the purely
veloping
is
mental stimuli, they also have a representation
of the stimulus and response that is internal in
the organism. While the symbols S and R are
used to represent the overt stimulus and re-
work
method for
for his
context, and that theories of psycholinguistics
associations.
process
model of
establishment of meaning. Although individuals can respond overtly to actual environ-
measuring meaning. His theory is one of the
most elaborate of the behavioral theories of language and meaning. 16 Osgood believes that
language should not be studied apart from actual ongoing behavior, that language is used in
In order to understand
By this
ways. Osgood, however, believes that
this association
arises
ternal behavior.
bell.
simple, and psychologists agree that
learning does occur in other,
The theory of Charles
seeks to explain
sound of a
links are established. This
is
response
17.
to as S-R.
reflexive,
such
as
knee
Here the stimulus and
are linked automatically and directly.
the integration level the stimulus-response
is
not automatic. Stimulus and response
paired or associated
must be integrated by the brain through perceived association. An example is the routine
greeting ritual: “How are you?” “I am fine.”
The representational level is the level on which
meaning occurs. The stimulus from the environment is projected onto the brain, where an
with the original stimulus, the organism learns
internal response leads to an internal stimulus
how
ual affect
the person will respond to the
stimulus, and so they revise the
S-O-R, which
refers
model
to read
to stimulus-organism-
response.
When
a
new
stimulus
is
(meaning), which in turn leads to the individ-
293-94.
15.
Ibid., pp.
16.
Charles Osgood,
“On
ual’s overt response.
Understanding and Creating
Sentences,” American Psychologist 18 (1963): 735-51.
Ibid., p. 740.
99
The
internal response or
THEMATIC THEORIES
meaning
is
a
you
learned association between certain
and a sign of the
word, perhaps) will
elicit a particular meaning or set of meanings,
which stem from the association of the sign and
object.
Thus
the object.
the sign
To
suppose you
the chair,
real life
(a
process.
and it
immediate future a picture of
the sight of another similar chair, or
in a small fragile chair,
words “small fragile chair” will elicit an
image (r m ) in your head that influences how
the
is part of your meaning for the sign. In
meanings are more complex than in this
example, but they are formed, Osgood believes, through the same basic associational
use a rather dramatic example,
sit
collapses. In the
will respond. This internal response (fear
or pain)
actual responses to the object
In
summary, Osgood
level as sensory, the
second
sees
the
first
as perceptual,
and
the third as meaningful.
The development of meaning by
a sign
trated
associating
with an environmental stimulus
in
is
illus-
Figure 6.3. This figure shows the
Processes
Decoding
Encoding
Association
Representational
s..
Integra tional
s
Projection
r
s
(1)
s refers
r
Sensory
R
to internal stimuli, r to internal responses, both differentiated
by
level.
stimulus and response.
Figure 6.2.
Perception
(3)
(2)
S
*The symbol
r
(6)
(5)
(4)
Meaning
n
(9)
(8)
(7)
Levels
Three-stage mediation model of behavior.
100
S and R
refer to external
.
THEORIES OF MEANING
development of a sign S as the result of its
association with a natural stimulus S. A portion
of one’s complex response to the natural
stimulus R t becomes represented in the form
of an internal response r m which in turn becomes an internal stimulus to a new but related
,
R x Meaning
overt response
.
mediating process represented
r
m
>
m
is
the internal
in Figure 6.3 as
Such meaning, since it is inthe person and unique to the person’s own
side
s
.
experience with the natural stimulus, is said to
be connotative Osgood presents a good example
of this process. For a particular person a spider
(S)
elicits a
word
spider
might be
son’s
.
When
the
associated with the object as
is
it
m
,
each of which
meanings
elicits
in
These signs are associated with another
new sign, I SI, and their internal responses
(meanings) “rub off” on the new sign (r ma ).
To continue our example, imagine that the
child who had already established internal re(r
).
sponses to the words
spider, big,
tened to a story about
and
hairy lis-
a tarantula. In the story
was characterized as a “big, hairy
spider.” Through association the child will now
have a meaning for the new word tarantula.
This word may also carry some mixture of the
connotations earlier attached to the other words
the tarantula
because of
association with these words. If
its
small child, a portion of the
the child associated spider with fear, big with
becomes associated with the
This internal meaning mediates the perresponse to the word, even when the ac-
potentially dangerous, and hairy with feeling
response
label.
complex response R T
S
signs,
the individual because of previous associations
in
Rm
tual object
is
a
(fear)
might well react to a real
or imagined tarantula by running away. In this
creepy, then the child
not present. 18
Most meanings
are not learned as a result
of
with the natural stimulus. In
other words, they are learned by associations
direct experience
between one sign and another, a process that
occur in the abstract out of physical contact with the original stimulus. Figure 6.4 is
Osgood’s illustration of this more complex
process. 19 This figure depicts a series of
may
18.
in
ISI (tarantula),
when
words, comes to
of avoidance (r
stimulus
(R xa )
(s
ma
when
)
associated with the other
elicit
m a)>
the internal response
which
itself
becomes
to cause the child to run
tarantula.
Osgood, “The Nature and Measurement of Meaning,”
The Semantic Differential Technique, ed. James Snider and
Charles
19.
Osgood
(Chicago: Aldine, 1969), pp. 9-10.
Ibid., p. 11.
S
Rx
From The Measurement
of Meaning,
by Charles Osgood,
George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum. Copyright© 1957
by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Reprinted by permission of the University of Illinois Press.
Figure 6.3. Development of a sign.
a
away
threatened by a real or imagined
From The Measurement
of Meaning, by Charles Osgood,
George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum. Copyright
1957
by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Reprinted by permission of the University of Illinois Press.
©
Figure 6.4. Development of an assign.
—
THEMATIC THEORIES
Osgood
perhaps best
is
known
and strong. In any case one’s connotative meaning for mother will depend on learned associations in the individual’s life. (Keep in mind that
for the seman-
differential technique, a method for measuring
meaning. 20 This measurement technique assumes that one’s meanings can be expressed by
the use of words. The method begins by
finding a set of adjectives that could be used to
express individuals’ connotations for some
stimulus or sign. These adjectives are set against
one another as opposites, such as good/bad,
tic
high/low, slow/fast. Individuals are given
meaning are not
dichotomous but continuous variables.)
Osgood and others have done semantic differential research on a variety of sign types,
including word concepts, music, art, and even
sonar sounds. 22 In addition they have done research among a number of groups of people
representing a wide range of cultures. Osgood
believes that the three factors of meaning
evaluation, potency, and activity
apply across
all people and all concepts. 23 If this is true, then
Osgood has significantly advanced our understanding of meaning.
Osgood’s mediational approach has been
especially well applied by social psychologists
to persuasion and attitude research. Osgood
the three dimensions of
a
word, or other stimulus and are asked to
on a seven-point scale how they associate the stimulus with the adjective pairs. A
sample scale looks like this:
topic,
indicate
good
:
:
:
:
bad
:
:
—
The
subject places a check mark on any space
between these adjectives to indicate the degree
of good or bad associated with the stimulus.
The
subject
scales for
statistical
may
fill
many as fifty such
Osgood then uses a
out as
each stimulus.
himself has participated in developing
technique called factor analysis to find
the basic dimensions of meaning that are operat-
ing in peoples’ connotations of the stimulus.
His findings in this research have led to the
theory of semantic space. 21
One’s meaning for any sign
is
given sign, perhaps a
activity,
word
and potency.
or concept,
theory
of view is expressed in Charles Osgood,
“Semantic Differential Technique in the Comparative
Study of Cultures,” in The Semantic Differential Technique,
ed. James Snider and Charles Osgood (Chicago: Aldine,
1969), pp. 303-32); and Cross Cultural Universals of Affective
Meaning (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975).
23. This point
said to be
located in a metaphorical space of three major
dimensions: evaluation,
a
A sampling of studies illustrating the applications can
be found in Snider and Osgood, Semantic Differential. This
work also includes an atlas of approximately 55 concepts
and their semantic profiles.
22.
A
elicits a
reaction in the person consisting of a sense of
Good
evaluation (good or bad), activity (active or
inactive),
and potency or strength. The person’s
connotative meaning will lie somewhere in this
hypothetical space, depending on the responses
of the person on the three factors. Figure 6.5
illustrates
semantic space.
Take the concept mother, for example. For
any given person this sign will elicit an internal
response embodying
some combination of the
One person might judge mother as
good, passive, weak; another as good, active,
three factors.
20. Ibid.
21.
More
recently
Osgood
has hypothesized that bipolarity
a basic factor in all language and human thought. See
Charles Osgood and Meredith Richards, “From Yang and
Yin to and or but," Language 49 (1973): 380-412.
is
Figure 6.5.
102
Three-dimensional semantic space.
—
THEORIES OF MEANING
of attitude change. His semantic differential
technique has often been used in attitude re-
criticism, related
search because his concept of meaning
ness of semantic differential technique for
of
to that
attitude.
again in Chapter
An
We
is
similar
will return to this issue
8.
interesting epistemological division
is
mainly to validity. 25 Although
most behavioral researchers admit the useful-
measuring
ing, they question the
of connotative meanview that the factors of
meaning
potency, and activity
a certain aspect
— evaluation,
found among the theories in this section.
Langer and Richards stress the importance of
concepts, and cultures. Although these factors
individual interpretation and the personal nature of meaning. Osgood’s theory, however, is
have appeared in an amazingly diverse set of
studies, they do not always appear; to suggest
behavioristic and posits universal factors of
that they are universal
meaning. His semantic
tion.
diffetential epitomizes
are invariant
and universal across
differential arise
“measuring” dimensions of existing
ical
how
reality.
illustrates clearly
gross overgeneraliza-
problems.
First,
somewhat
assumptions about knowledge
shape the sort of claims made and methods
used. Richards and Langer, assuming rich indi-
from the use of
vidual differences in personal knowledge, attempt to capture idiosyncratic aspects of representational meaning. Osgood, in contrast, seeks
presented with
a theorist’s
a
Problems of validity in the use of semantic
from at least two methodolog-
the behaviorist penchant for “discovering” and
This fundamental difference
is
situations,
similar responses
may
result
a highly structured stimulus
The semantic
situation.
differential
always in-
volves adjective scales, and subjects are often
many of the same scales in study
may respond more to the
after study. Subjects
The
basic criticism
form of the instrument than to the real meanings of the concepts. Second, the semantic differential relies heavily on a statistical procedure
called factor analysis. This technique shows
how the several scales intercorrelate to form
factors, but the researcher must subjectively
as a
group
interpret
the generalized forms of
meaning
that cut
across situations and cultures.
i
Criticism of Representational Theories
there
is
of representational theories
one of scope. No one denies that
of truth in these theories, but
a grain
is
as
they are indicted for being overly simple. The
notion that words are taken to represent referents
is
critics.
us
factors. If a theorist
such
believes that three factors are univer-
strong tendency
may
develop to interpret
the factor structure in just that way. In short,
the claim that factors of meaning are universal
obvious and uninteresting, according to
These theories are word-centered and
24
may
of how meaning arises and develops
communicative process. Critics believe
that the most important aspects of meaning are
beyond the word level. Langer identifies the
tell
and name the
Osgood
sal, a
be the result of a
self-fulfilling
prophecy.
little
in the
as a reac-
tion to
guage philosophy represent one attempt to deal
with meaning on a higher level.
other was the tradition of propositional mean-
its
two earlier movements. One was the
representational approach to meaning, and the
ing.
Osgood’s theory ofsematic space, because of
method, has incurred a different kind of
24. This criticism
developed extensively by Bernard
Introduction to the Philosophy of Language (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979). See also Stanley Deetz,
Words without Things: Toward a Social Phenomenology
of Language,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59 (1973): 40-54.
Harrison,
*
Ordinary Language Philosophy
Ordinary language philosophy began
higher discursive level but does not develop it.
In the next section theories from ordinary lan-
is
As you have
just seen in the last section,
representational theories center
on the
relation-
Criticisms, including both positive and negative evaluations of the semantic differential, are summarized in
25.
An
Donald K. Darnell, “Semantic
Differentiation,” in Methods
of Research in Communication ed. Philip Emmert and William Brooks (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970), pp. 181-%.
,
103
THEMATIC THEORIES
ship between symbols and referents.
The propmean-
ositional school looks to the sentence for
ing;
it
logical
finds the source
structure
of meaning to be the
is
It
equivalent to the utterance itself without
considering the speaker’s intentions. Philos*
ophers of the propositional school center
of propositions, or claims.
on the
their efforts
This approach does not consider how a statement is actually being used in interaction. Or-
the force of
dinary language philosophers believe that the
illocution
most important aspect of meaning is not found
in the reference of words or in formal logic but
in the way language is used. Speech acts, not
forms, are the most important factors of com-
is
of such
analysis
communicating an
taken as
a
warning,
intention.
a
of
An
An
compliment,
reprimand,
a
promise, and so forth.
locutionary act
is
one designed
a
all
acts.
involves saying something with
illocutionary act
A
per-
to affect the feel-
of listenacts, which are
most important for Austin, are marked
by the use of certain performative verbs. These
ings, attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
ers 28
.
munication meaning.
The
two types of
latter
clearly
Foundations: Wittgenstein and Austin
Ludwig Wittgenstein, a German philosopher,
was the originator of ordinary language
philosophy. His early works were strongly in
verbs literally
by the
name
utterance.
the act being accomplished
Such verbs
as name,
assert,
promise, ask or thank guide the observer to un-
derstand the intentions of the speaker. These
the propositional tradition, but he repudiated
concepts are discussed in
approach in one of the most dramatic turnarounds in modern philosophy 26 He later
taught that the meaning of language depends on
the context of use. Further, single words by
themselves are rarely meaningful. Language, as
section
this
on speech
more
detail in the
next
acts.
.
Searle’s
acts.
laid
by Wittgenstein
and Austin, John Searle developed the wellknown theory of speech acts 29 Although Searle
is not solely responsible for speech act theory,
he is clearly the leader of the movement, and his
used in ordinary life, constitutes a language
game. In other words, people follow rules for
accomplishing verbal
Theory of Speech Acts
Building on the foundation
.
Giving and obeying
scribing events are examples of ordinary uses of
name is most often associated with the theory.
The speech act is the basic unit of language for
language that follow rules and hence constitute
expressing meaning.
language games.
presses an intention.
While the philosophical groundwork of ordinary language philosophy was laid by
Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin developed the basic
concepts of what his protege, John Searle, later
a sentence, but
orders,
called
asking and answering questions, de-
speech acts
27
.
types of speech acts.
long as
A
work was
is
or phrase, so
in
Wittgenstein’s
undeveloped in speech act literaFor a development of this concept, see Robert N.
Gaines, “Doing by Saying: Toward a Theory of Perlocution,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 207-17.
29.
early
the speech act
word
follows the rules necessary to ac-
ture.
Tractus
John
Searle, Speech Acts:
An
Essay
in the
Philosophy of
Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969);
Searle, “Human Communication Theory and the
Philosophy of Language,” in Human Communication Theory,
ed. Frank Dance (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1967), pp. 116-29. Good secondary sources include John
Stewart, “Concepts of Language and Meaning: A Comparative Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): 123-33;
Paul N. Campbell, “A Rhetorical View of Locutionary,
Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Acts,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 59 (1973): 284-96; Gaines, “Doing by Saying”; and
Silverman and Torode, The Material Word, pp. 203-25.
and Kegan Paul,
work, which forms the foundation for ordi-
Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge
1922); his later
a
complish the intention (or
locutionary act involves
known
an utterance that ex-
It is
Normally
can be
28. Perlocutionary acts are
Austin designates three
saying something that has referential meaning.
26. Wittgenstein’s best
it
it
nary language philosophy, is Philosophical Investigations
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953). I have relied on the excellent summary by David Silverman and Brian Torode, The
Some Theories of Language and Its Limits (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980).
Material Word:
27. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1962); Austin, Philosophy of Language (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964).
104
THEORIES OF MEANING
terms, to play the language game).
We
will
effects or
discuss rules in speech acts momentarily; for
now
let
speech
acts.
When one
consequences in other peoples’ be-
havior. Since the difference
between illocution
and perlocution is sometimes hard to grasp,
let’s pursue it a little further.
us turn our attention to the nature of
speaks, one performs an
The act may involve stating, questioning,
commanding, promising, or any of a number
An
act.
illocution
is
primary concern
an act in which the speaker’s
that the listener understand
is
A
of other acts. Speech therefore is conceived of as
a form of action or intentional behavior. If we
the speaker’s intention.
relate this discussion to the
tener to understand but to act in a particular
we
Chomsky
see that while
in
previous chapter,
is
way
interested in lan-
as intention.
thing,
when he
and the performing of a speech
to
act
is
an attempt
Now
let
us pursue propositional acts and
illocutionary acts in
content of an illocution.
act theory
does not
of symbols but
a whole. If you make a
event. The cake
the intent of the act as
Her name
promise, you are communicating an intention
about something you will do in the future; but
viewed
the
to
of
as part
tion. Searle
body,
examples of proposibe evaluated in terms of
speech act theory,
illocutionary act
is
deter-
a larger context, the illocu-
would be
the following:
warn you that
association
one designed
to the
mined in part by establishing how the speaker
wishes others to take the stated proposition.
Hence, for Searle, propositions must always be
I
ask
salt is
interested in acts such as
whether the cake is good; I
harmful to the body; I state
name is Karen. What the speaker is
doing with the proposition is the speech act,
and how the proposition is to be taken by the
that her
designed to fulfill an intention
vis-a-vis another person. Here one uses the
speech act to elicit response in another. Finally,
is
harmful
all
earlier. In
The meaning of an
is
the perlocutionary act
Karen are
is
speaker intends to do by uttering a proposition.
between
a subject and verb or to designate an object and
refer this object to something else. An illocutionary act
some
designates
however, truth and logic are not considered
important. Rather, the question is what a
utterance of a sentence with the intention of
expressing a reference. In other words, the in-
make an
good, Salt
school referred to
Such acts are the simple pronunciation of
words, singly or in combination. Here the intention is to utter, nothing more. An example is
an actor doing voice exercises. The propositional
dividual wishes to
The proposi-
one aspect of the
It
their truth value. The logical relationship of one
proposition to another can also be examined.
These are the proper tasks of the propositional
Austin’s but slightly different, divides speech
acts into four types. The first is an utterance act.
It is
is
is
tions. Propositions can
more importantly, you are expecting the other
communicator to realize from what you have
said what your intention is.
Searle’s classification, essentially the same as
refers to as a locution.
detail.
quality or association of an object, situation, or
stress the individual referents
what Austin
more
tion can be understood as
speaker’s intention. Unlike the representational
act is
lis-
say, “I
tered simultaneously.
that the recipient understand the
view of meaning, speech
I
ment expecting you to bring me a glass of wamy act is perlocutionary. These four kinds
of acts are highly interrelated and often are ut-
communicate one’s intention to another perAn important part of the meaning of a
is
because of that understanding. If
ter,
act,
son.
speech act
an act
thirsty,” with the intention of having you
understand that I need a drink, I am performing
an illocutionary act. If I make the same state-
The speaker means some-
or she performs a speech
is
am
guage competence, Searle is interested in language performance.
What, then, is meaning from the standpoint
of speech act theory? Meaning is roughly the
same
perlocution
which the speaker not only expects the
audience
is the illocutionary force of the statement. You could, for example, state the proposition The cake is good in such a way as to have
have
105
THEMATIC THEORIES
you were speaking ironiimply just the opposite: This
the listener realize that
meaning
cally,
cake
is
to
the worst
I
ever
stitute” a sufficient set
to
Searle states fundamentally that “speaking a
language
is
engaging in
a
of
Two
rules theory.
as a
named
types of rules are
speaker and hearer necessary for the act to take
game exists only by
that the listener
When you
following a certain
game of
football
therefore
tell
of
set
The rules
rules,
observe people
you what
The sincerity rule requires the speaker to
mean what is said. (In the case of insincere
illocutions, the act
is
presented in such a
you know the
way
presumes the speaker actually
intends what he or she says
is
essential rule states that the act
being played. These rules
is
The
some condi-
in parentheses above.
of the referenced object. Preparatory rules
involve the presumed preconditions in the
.';
virtue of its rules.
act
the basic
tion
place.
constitute the game.
must have
propositional content rule specifies
rule
create new forms
of behavior; that is, acts are created by the establishment of rules. For example, football as a
important. Constitutive
of conditions for an
promise.
illocutionary act
kinds of rules
rule-governed form of
behavior.” 30 In Chapter 4 we mentioned that
speech act theory is one of the primary applications
count
Any
ate.
intended.)
is
The
indeed taken
by the hearer and speaker to represent what it
appears to be on the face. Of course, many acts
are not successful in these ways, and speech acts
can be evaluated in terms of the degree to which
they meet these criteria. Searle believes that
to interpret as football.
In speech acts, one’s intention is largely understood by another person by virtue of constitutive rules, because these rules tell others what to
as a particular kind of act. An example is
provided in the next paragraph. The second
kind of rule is regulative. Regulative rules pro-
speech acts
vide guidelines for acting out already estab-
illocutionary acts, including at least requesting,
count
lished behavior.
The behaviors
are
guest
who
is
rules, let us
clearly states the intention, other speech acts are
leaving.
look
at
indirect.
one of
family
constitutive
analyses of a speech act, the act of
making
be
a
promise. Promising involves five basic rules
First, promising involves uttering a sentence
act {propositional content rule).
tence
is
do the
would
not do
it
Finally, a
Searle, Speech Acts, p.
say, “Is
a request.
of illocutionary
called assertives.
An
assertive
is
a
clude, believe, and so forth. Directives are
il-
locutions that attempt to get the listener to
do
something. They are commands, requests,
pleadings, prayers, entreaties, invitations, and
so forth. Commissives
promise involves the
commit
the speaker to a
They consist of such acts as promisvowing, pledging, contracting, guaranteeing, and so forth. Expressives are acts that
future act.
establishment of an obligation for the speaker to
do the act ( essential rule). These five rules “con30.
first is
it is
tion.
a
Fourth, the speaker must intend to do the act
(sincerity rule).
The
statement of
might
the face this appears to
In direct form such acts might contain
such performative verbs as state, affirm, con-
rather
{prepa-
promise only
when it would not otherwise be obvious to the
speaker and hearer that the act would be done in
the normal course of events {preparatory rule).
is
On
but in actuality
proposition that commits the
speaker to advocate the truth of the proposia
Second, the sen-
act than
statement
acts.
do some future
uttered only if the listener
that the speaker
ratory rule). Third, a
to the table, a father
a question,
Searle outlines five types
.
that indicates the speaker will
For example, in requesting that his
come
anybody hungry?”
extended
Searle’s
a
questioning, thanking, advising,
warning, greeting, and congratulating.
Although many speech acts are direct; involving the use of an explicit proposition that
tell
As an example of the use of
calls
These constitutive
wide variety of
asserting,
and the
one how to use the behaviors to accomplish a particular intention.
For example, a host often opens the door for a
regulative rules
be defective; Austin
rules are believed to apply to a
known and
available before being used in the act,
may
defective act an infelicity.
ing,
communicate some aspect of
22
106
the speaker’s
.
THEORIES OF MEANING
psychological
They
state.
congratulating,
condoling, wel-
Finally, a declaration
signed to create a proposition that, by
assertion,
makes
it
so.
don automatically
include thanking,
apologizing,
coming, and others.
is
its
Austin claims
de-
constitutes an illocution, as
does.
it
The
very
Examples include ap-
even
could observe the difference
if one
readers,
these concepts,
tute a useful conceptual
given speech act
philosophy is that it takes the analysis of language out of the realm of the formal and structural and into the arena of actual use. Ironically,
its primary weakness may be that it has not
done enough to show how language-in-use operates in ongoing communication 31 This problem is discussed in terms of three related criteria
of theory evaluation: scope, validity, and
intents
ent
for example,
rules
among
now
Austin has, in
structure that
is
in
research on communication
awaits future investigation and development.
Language and Experience
meaning take the posimost important aspect of meaning
between language and experience. All of these theories share the thesis
that language strongly influences the ongoing
life and experience of the person. Meaning thus
is conceived as the person’s knowledge of reality, as shaped by language. Unlike the representational approaches, these theories do not
Experiential theories of
“And
tion that the
is
criticized for
A thorough and rather biting critique of Austin can be
in Campbell, “Rhetorical View”; see also Gaines,
Critical commentary can also be found
Silverman and Torode, The Material Word, and Harrison,
found
“Doing by Saying.”
in the relationship
separate the sign, the referent, and the person.
Introduction
Campbell, “Rhetorical View,”
Little
33.
31.
32.
of
on the face, language-in-use would seem to be
of great interest. Perhaps the main contribution
of this line of theory is a basic idea, an idea that
being unclear. Critics question the utility of
locution as a concept if the utterance of a locu-
in
are constitutive in the sense
processes has resulted from the ideas of
Wittgenstein, Austin, and Searle, even though
judgment, erected a
imminent danger of colis
no longer
theories.
my
lapse .” 32 His three-fold analysis
apply
lidity
is
locutionary, illocutionary, and
critic states:
may
directly to types
These apparent weaknesses of scope and vahave lessened the heuristic value of these
is
the apparent inherent
One
may be fulfilling a variety of
be taken in a variety of differ-
different listeners. Conceptually,
new acts. Hence, rules that regulate can
be taken as constitutive, and rules that constitute an act also regulate it.
perlocutionary acts has been severely criticized
this standpoint.
may
creating
conceptual categories of speech act theory are
vague or meaningless. Austin’s three-fold dis-
from
for guiding
of force and effects than
of acts per se.
The distinction between regulative and constitutive rules is equally fuzzy 33 The problem
here is that once any act becomes standardized,
as in the case of almost all illocutionary acts,
with speakers’ actual purposes in using those
verbs or with listeners’ actual interpretations.
Although some critics agree that intentions
are an important aspect of meaning, that speech
constitutes a form of action, and that speech
acts are governed by rules, they argue that the
tinction
and
ways by
more
Critics point out that despite its broad claims
and qualifications to the contrary, speech act
analysis is^narrow in scope. It focuses on the
structure of utterances as indicators of their in-
Austin,
framework
the terms illocution and perlocution
heuristic value.
implications of performative verbs than he
among
doubtful that they consti-
to types
.
more concerned about
it is
equally
point out that
our understanding of speech acts. It would
perhaps be more fruitful to recogize that any
Language Philosophy
strength of ordinary language
tentional meanings.
between
is
many
forth.
The obvious
who
unclear to
pointing, marrying, firing, resigning, and so
Criticism of Ordinary
distinction
illocutionary and perlocutionary acts
Susan B. Shimanoff, Communication Rules: Theory and
CA: Sage 1980), pp. 84-83.
p. 287.
Research (Beverly Hills,
107
THEMATIC THEORIES
They
place the three as being so closely intertwined that they must be viewed together.
There are numerous experiential approaches to
meaning. Two major experiential theories are
presented here for illustration: Cassirer’s theory
of symbolic forms and
Whorf s
theory of
lin-
must adapt
be saying
to “reality.”
What
that language
is
Cassirer seems to
and nature
interact.
Our language and other symbolic forms
influence how we perceive; at the same time,
what we perceive may influence our symbolic
forms
A
guistic relativity.
36
culture’s
predominant symbolic forms
shape both the culture’s expression and percepCassirer’s Philosophy of
Symbolic Forms
Ernst Cassirer is one of the best-known language philosophers of our age. Cassirer was a
German philosopher who wrote during the first
As an epistemologist he
believed that the human mind can be under-
The Philosophy of Symbolic
Forms, discusses four major forms: myth, art,
tion.
Cassirer,
common
in
language, and science. 37
like primitive
feeling-centered forms.
stood only through an investigation of symand he devoted his life to
exploring this topic. The Philosophy of Symbolic
expresses include
Forms, published in the 1920s,
derstanding of concepts but to
bolic processes,
is
his largest
single work and the one most concerned with
language and meaning. 34 An Essay on Man,
perhaps his best known work, also deals in part
with symbolism. 35
For Cassirer language is intimately tied to
human mind. The important human quality
of language is meaning. Cassirer believes that
the
language cannot be studied from afar as a natural object might be studied. It must be ap-
proached phenomenologically through the
mind and meanings of the person.
Human beings experience the world through
symbols; symbolic representation is inherent to
our perception. Languages and other symbolic
forms structure reality for us, but we are not
stuck in an inflexible position because of some
preordained linguistic straitjacket. People must
confront natural forces, and thus their language
Myth and
Myth
nonlogical, value-centered form.
life,
(Berlin:
Bruno
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, 3
Cassirer,
1923,
1925,
1929).
Concept of
Dame
Man
as
felt
theme of the symbol-mediated na-
ture of reality, Langer continues: “This
not
of a radically different ‘given fact,’ but is the
way phenomena are given to naive apprehension.” 39 At this level the person sees the meaning of the symbol as intrinsic in the form itself:
“In savage societies, names are treated as
though they were physical proxies for their
bearers.” 40
36.
myth
much about
art,
— highly personal and
myth nor
but
feel-
forms are
forms their
art
This interpretation
is
further developed in Itzkoff,
Emst
Cassirer, pp. 115-18, 138.
Explanations of these can be found in Susanne K.
Langer, “On Cassirer’s Theory of Language and Myth,” in
37.
The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer, ed. Paul Schlipp (New
York: Tudor Publishing, 1949), pp. 387-90; Itzkoff, Ernst
Urban, “Cassirer’s Philosophy of Language,” p. 420-30.
pp. 403-41.
38. Langer,
Man (New Haven:
is
‘make-believe,’ not a willful or playful distortion
Cassirer, pp. 105-8;
Essay on
is
an inherent power.” 38 Recalling Cas-
sirer’s basic
vols.
Several sec-
(Notre Dame: University of Notre
An
it
evil,
objects or places or being, and their import
Cassirer did not write
Press,
Cassirer,
values
a deep sense of
among the people of a culture. As
Langer describes it: “Mythic symbols do not
even appear to be symbols; they appear as holy
1971); Paul Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of
Cassirer (New York: Tudor Publishing, 1949). For a
short overview see Wilbur Urban, “Cassirer’s Philosophy
of Language, in Schlipp, The Philosophy of Emst Cassirer,
Emst
The
power, violence,
identification
ing centered. Neither
Emst
35.
primitive,
and death. These values are emotionally
charged. Myth, therefore, does not lead to un-
art is similar to
ondary sources are available, including Carl H. Hamburg,
Symbol and Reality (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1970);
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Emst Cassirer: Scientific Knowledge and
the
a
is
very abstract. Unlike scientific
34. Ernst Cassirer,
art,
language, are highly personal and
half of this century.
“On
39. Ibid., p. 389.
Yale
University Press, 1944).
40.
108
Ibid., p. 390.
Cassirer’s Theory,” p. 388.
THEORIES OF MEANING
meanings are rather fixed
in the feeling
of the
moment.
Science, the highest symbolic form, devel-
ops
late in the
evolution of a culture. Unlike the
primitive mythical form,
it
facilitates abstract
thought. Scientific forms mediate reality just as
primitive forms do, but the scientist recognizes
this fact.
form,
that
Mathematics, the ultimate
scientific
a glass
spontaneously
fourth form, language,
actual act
things.
The
themselves
so distant from the sensory experience
symbolizes pure relations rather than
is
it
person is bound to the immediate sensory experience. Here is an example: “The contrast between normal man, who lives in a world of
mediated signs and meanings, and the apractic,
who must aim at a direct goal for his actions, is
exemplified by the fact that many apractics who
under ordinary conditions could not pour
is
intimately re-
lated to the other three. Cassirer
shows how
of water when asked, do so
thirsty. The multitude of
when
individual and mediated symbolic steps between the request to pour the water and the
is
too overwhelming for them to in-
tegrate and respond normally .” 41
language evolves from a primitive state similar
to myth to an advanced state similar to science.
portant attributes,
Language passes through three
processes: gestalt perception (seeing wholes
mimetic stage, the language
is
stages.
In the
tied to individual
perceptions of the moment-. Like mythical
forms meaning at this stage varies little and
Meaning
mation and logical thinking. The second stage
analogic. At this stage the language begins to
move away from a strict one-to-one relationship with things. People begin to use sounds
more in terms of analogy to the real world
rather than identifying objects with sounds.
The most advanced stage in language development is symbolic. At the symbolic stage
grammar develops. Word meanings are broad
enough
to allow a range
of conceptions to be
possible. Thus perception itselfis widened. The
person becomes more creative and adaptive.
Only at this advanced stage can science develop. In summary the history of language is one
of ever increasing abstraction. As language develops, meaning is broadened from a strict
sensory, here-and-now identification to forms
that allow for multiple
meanings and
interre-
lationships.
Cassirer’s notions
on the
relationship
Our symbol-processing
abilities
apart
tions.
People
processing
who
abilities
At low
have
lost
their
In short, Cassirer sees
vidual’s perceptual
meaning
as the indi-
and thought worlds medi-
ated by the predominant linguistic and nonlinguistic symbolic forms of the culture. Cassirer
does not break completely with representa-
tional theory, but he takes a broader
view by
showing how symbolic forms create meaning
worlds in people by shaping their perception
and thinking.
Linguistic Relativity
Another theory that supports this view that
language shapes our very being is the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis otherwise known as the
linguistic relativity. Although the
method and origin of the relativity hypothesis is
distant from that of Cassirer, its assumptions
about language and meaning are much the
same. This theory 42 is based on the work of
Edward Sapir and his protege Benjamin Lee
,
theory of
41. Itzkoff, Ernst Cassirer, p. 132.
42.
symbol-
cannot operate on an ablevels
from the immediate presence of the sen-
suous object.
Edward
Sapir, Language:
An
Introduction to the Study of
Speech (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1921); Benjamin Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1956). In the previous volume the
following articles are most helpful: John B. Carroll, “Introduction,” pp. 1—34; “The Relation of Habitual Thought and
Behavior in Language,” pp. 134-359; “Language, Mind,
and Reality,” pp. 246-69.
allow us
to see relationships and to think through ac-
stract level.
possible
of lan-
guage to thought are largely influenced by his
observations of aphasics at a neurological institute.
made
interrelationships) and thought or mental action
lacks the abstraction necessary for concept for-
is
two imby symbolic
and
therefore seems to involve
of abstraction, the
109
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
Whorf. Whorf is best known for his fieldwork
in linguistics; his analysis of the Hopi is particu-
Whorf discov-
stead, the Hopi would refer to the passing or
coming of a phase that is never here and now
but always moving, accumulating. In our cul-
ered that fundamental syntactical differences are
ture three tenses indicate locations or places in a
larly
well
present
known.
In his research
among language
The Whorfian
groups.
verbs have no tense in the same sense. Instead,
verb forms relate to duration and order. In
that the structure of a culture’s language determines
the behavior
and habits of thinking
words of Edward
the
in that culture.
their
the Standard Average
In
Sapir:
beings do not live in the objective world
alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as
ordinarily understood, but are very much at the
mercy of the particular language which has become
the medium of expression for their society. It is quite
an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality es-
Suppose
is
.
If,
a
This hypothesis suggests that our thought
way we see the world are
shaped by the grammatical structure of the
language. As one reviewer reacted, “All one’s
life one has been tricked ... by the structure of
language into a certain way of perceiving
reality .” 44
however, the Hopi speaker wished to report
past event of running
the
Hopi
all
,
which repre-
view of the world at large or macroOne area of Whorf s extensive analysis of
Hopi thought is the analysis of time. While
.
examHopi conceive of
Thus the Hopi
language never objectifies time. A Hopi would
not refer to summer as “in the summer.” Inple,
cultures refer to points in time (for
seasons) as nouns, the
time as
43.
a
Quoted
passage or process.
in
tation.
Whorf, Language, Thought, and
would
it),
a different
(the
form
sentence,
Again,
it
translate warikni,
which
as a statement of expecnot the location in past,
is
present, or future that
is important to the Hopi,
but the nature of validity (observed fact, re-
or expectation). Another English
runs [on the track team],” would
warikngwe This latter Hopi form
again refers to running, but in the sense of law
called fact,
45.
or
groups the Hopi
sents their
many
will run,”
from memory
The English
“He
translate
illustrates the relativity
cultural
possess a thought-world microcosm
cosm
“He
used, era wari.
communicates running
form,
his life investigating
the relationship of language and behavior. His
hypothesis. Like
a fact.
hearer did not actually see
processes and the
work with
running:
presently occurring or happened in the past.
would be
much of
“He is running.”
word wari, which is a
The same word
report of past running, “He
is
would be used for a
ran.” For the Hopi the statement of fact (validity) is what is important, not whether the event
.
spent
as
4S
use the
statement of running as
is
Whorf
visualize time as a
more complex,
that a speaker reports to a hearer
that a third person
specific
.
is
following example
The Hopi would
without the use of language and that lanmerely an incidental means of solving
problems of communication or reflection.
The fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to a
large extent unconsciously built up on the language
habits of the group.
We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the
language habits of our community predispose certain
choices of interpretation 43
we
The Hopi conception
illustrated in the
sentially
.
European languages
(SAE), including English,
line.
Human
guage
and future. Hopi
spatial analogy: past, present,
hypothesis of linguistic relativity simply states
condition.
As a result of these
Hopi and SAE cultures
preparing
activities.
Experiences (getting pre-
pared) tend to accumulate as time “gets later.”
The emphasis
is
on
the accumulated experience
during the course of time, not on time as a point
or location. In SAE cultures, with their spatial
treatment of time, experiences are not accumulated in the
Reality, p.
134.
linguistic differences,
will think about, per-
and behave toward time differently. For
example, the Hopi tend to engage in lengthy
ceive,
same
sense. Elaborate
and lengthy
Adapted from Whorf, Language, Thought, and
44. Carroll, “Introduction,” p. 27.
p. 213.
no
Reality,
THEORIES OF MEANING
preparations are not often found.
The custom
in
objectified in space (recorded).
Whorf and Sapir’s
One commen-
erates in cultural experience.
SAE cultures is to record events (space-time
analogy) such that what happened in the past is
claims, however, are extreme.
tator writes that this theory
Whorf sum-
promotes two hor-
horror of helplessness, that people are
rors: the
marizes this view: “Concepts of ‘time’ and
‘matter’ are not given in substantially the same
helplessly trapped
form by experience to all men but depend upon
the nature of the language or languages through
communication across cultures 47 A good deal
of linguistic research challenges the validity of
the use of which they have been developed .” 46
these claims.
by their language, and the
horror of hopelessness, that there is no hope for
.
We have now looked at three senses of meaning. In the first
meaning
is
universal from the
seen as a representa-
Theory
studies as to constitute a
Scholarship on meaning
and
it?
How
how do we
separate
it
enough
do researchers and
This area
is
is
controversial because a particular
meaning often reflects a particular onset of beliefs about the nature of being. Much of this controversy is needless.
Meaning itself is an abstract concept; and con-
from
to ap-
sequently
it
can be applied legitimately in a
variety of ways.
Even
everyday
in
the term in different ways.
meaningful experience, or
of
as lan-
ing
that
that
a
we
word, or
life
we
use
We say that we had a
we
question the mean-
we deny
another person’s
misinterpretation of our intentions
mean it that way.
Most theories of meaning contain
it
goes beyond philosophical claims to make theoretical generalizations about how language op-
by saying
didn’t
a grain (or
Joshua Fishman, “A Systemization of the Whorfian
Hypothesis,” Behavioral Science 5 (1960): 323-39.
47.
46.
not to suggest
tology or
own linguistic experience to understand the process as a whole? Experiential
theories provide little in the way of substantive
strength of Whorfian theory
is
idea of
transcend their
The
own.
meaning theory is trivial or unimportant.
some of the greatest minds in philosophy have grappled with the nature of meaning.
theorists
understanding of the nature of language
guage or of meaning processes.
its
highly speculative
Indeed,
study. They keep generalization and development of substantive theory out
of reach. If meaning is so wrapped up in per-
sonal experience,
domain of
is
on philosophical argument and
that
them to
phenomena under
prehend
rests largely
anecdotal observation. This
are not sure
individual experience long
are not de-
to any communication event. People use language to share this experience. The correlation
between language and experience is meaning,
which is such a big part of communication
where to
deepen our understanding of the
take
be-
What Do We Know about Meaning?
The human being brings a wealth of experience
toward language and meaning. Their strength
is that they remind us of the centrality of individual human experience in meaning.
The problem is that once we understand and
we
Chomsky
meaning and that these definitely
termined by cultural factors.
Experiential theories provide a general attitude
accept their premises,
last chapter.
of language are
anything but culturally bound. Osgood too believes that he has found universal factors of
lieves that the essential features
of some object, occurrence, or condition.
The theories that espouse this view outline
three distinct elements: the object, the sign, and
the person. The second approach views meaning as intention. Theories in the third approach
stress the idea that symbols so heavily influence
the experience of the person that they cannot be
separated from human experience. Here we see
a major departure from the traditional view that
meaning is in the person and is elicited by signs.
tion
Criticism of Experiential
Recall the concept of language
Ibid., p. 158.
Ill
THEMATIC THEORIES
boulder) of truth.
They have
greater potential
for integrating the various notions
of meaning
Postscript
than implied by their advocates. Such an integration can be accomplished by using a multidimensional
model of meaning,
Clearly language and meaning are domains that
are central to the process
consisting of
difficult to
understand.
many
of communication, yet
They
are multifaceted,
at least three factors.
involving
meaning has a referential aspect. Clearly
words and other symbols are taken to represent
they present us with a paradox.
First,
objects, situations, conditions, or states.
heart of
Com-
seem
munication itself could not occur without
shared symbolic references. The problem in
meaning theory is not that the notion of meaning as reference is wrong, but that it is inadequate by itself to explain the complexity of
meaning.
Thus a second dimension needs to be added
to the model, the experiential aspect of meaning.
This dimension emphasizes that meaning is
largely a matter of experience. How one experiences the world is determined in part by the
meanings one attaches to symbols of objects in
the world. At the same time that very experience shapes our meanings. We use symbols to
affect and adapt to our environment by expressing our experience; at the same time meanings
attached to language affect
how we
experience
it is
not surprising that these areas
are epistemologically mixed.
Most philosophi-
of meaning now in vogue treat
meaning as relative and subjective, recognizing
the individuality of experiential meanings.
However, this observation is not true of all
cal
theories
philosophical approaches;
some philosophers
seek universal meaning structures.
chologists too have treated
tive event,
cover
its
are at the
yet they
beyond our grasp to define and
obvious from the material pre-
to be just
explain.
It
is
two chapters that controverabound among theorists of language and
Many of the issues are epistemologi-
sented in the
sies
last
meaning.
Once
again
we
faced with the realization that the
most
fruitful
cal;
others are substantive.
way
are
to gain a fuller understanding and apprecia-
tion for elements
of human communication is
of which
to apply multiple perspectives, each
presents particular insights that together enlighten the subject.
With
the full recognition that evaluative
generalizations are difficult and risky in do-
mains
as
huge
as
these,
we
can
make some
parting judgments. This area of theory contains
a
wide variety of
related concepts. Yet, ironi-
the theories of language, nonverbal codand meaning remain for the most part isoand separated from one another. In the
domains of language and meaning we see a clear
example of the disadvantages of single-discipline and overly specialized approaches to the
ing,
dimension complicates our conception even more. This is the purposive dimension, which implies that human’s intentions
vis-a-vis others are an important aspect of
meaning. We fulfill purposes in using language
and other symbols, and our intentions shape the
way symbols are understood.
Given the extensiveness of the domains of
language and meaning and their multidisciplithird
nary nature,
and thus
They
human communication,
cally,
the environment.
A
all
different dimensions,
attempting to
meaning
measure
Some
as
it
psy-
an objec-
and
dis-
operational characteristics.
112
lated
study of communication. For example,
many
on the complexities of
grammar, have ignored obvious connections
between linguistic and other social processes.
Language often is treated as a phenomenon
apart from communication. Likewise, researchers of nonverbal communication too often separate nonlinguistic codes from the larger coding
complex, focusing undue attention on small
parts of an inseparable whole. Because of
the heretofore disjointed nature of this work,
integrative theories such as that of Pearce and
Cronen (Chapter 4) are especially attractive.
Of course any criticism of language and
meaning must be tempered with the qualification that these phenomena are extremely
linguists, in their focus
THEORIES OF MEANING
We will never be able to observe deep processes of language generation or
what
meaning
largely semantic.
The
difficult to study.
making
kind of study a
speculative business. Researchers must make inferences about unseen processes based on obdirectly,
servable behaviors.
The
this
trick
is
to
do
providing
come up
cause they cannot agree on what meaning
Hopefully, these
deal
last
two
is!
chapters have pro-
modicum of clarity to an otherwise
muddy river. We move now to a discussion of
vided
but more recent developments
grammar have been successful in
a credible
is somemeaning theory are
The major disagreements
with the meaning of meaning. Indeed, meaning
have not been able to agree on what to
observe to make inferences about meaning be-
a
the effects of language and
this,
in generative
Issues in
theorists
with a picture of underlying phenomena that
account for patterns of observed behavior. Thus
linguists must provide explanations that account for actual speech. Early language theory
failed to
challenge of meaning theory
different.
meaning
realms of information and persuasion.
theory of language.
113
in
the
I
CHAPTER
7
Information
is
an important element in the
communication process. The essential feature
of all messages is information, and people use
the information in messages to reduce uncertainty and thereby adapt to the environment.
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first
part reviews ideas that have been labeled'' infor-
mation theory. Although information theory has
less direct applicability to
Theories
of Information and
Information Processing
formation theory, which is designed as a tool
for developing transmissional devices. The secpart deals with the semantics of information, and the third presents a theory of informa-
ond
tion effects.
Information theory, which is primarily a
mathematical formulation, grew out of the
postwar boom in the telecommunications in-
A perspective that focuses on the meait deals with the quanstudy of information in messages and
the flow of information between senders and
receivers. It has extremely practical applications
communication than
do some of the other theories in this book, it
surement of information,
establishes certain foundational definitions that
titative
the base of much of our current thinking
about communication. The second part of the
chapter reviews some theories of information
lie at
dustry.
in the electronic sciences
which deal with how humans handle
information they receive from the environment. The first section provides important concepts of information as a commodity, and the
second section helps us understand how people
processing,
use information in their lives.
of communication that
have a need for computing information quantities and designing channels, transmitters, receivers,
and codes that
facilitate efficient
han-
we get into the
core concepts of information theory, let’s discuss the development of the movement. 2
dling of information. Before
Information theory developed out of inves-
1.
tigations in physics, engineering,
Information Theory
In an early article on the mathematical theory of
communication, Warren Weaver suggests three
fruitful areas of concern for information
matics,
and mathewhich were concerned with the organi-
among occurrences. The common thread
among these rather independent investigations
zation
was the
realization that organization
is
a
matter
The first, the technical level of informaconcerns the accuracy and efficiency of
information transmission. The second, the
of probability. (One of the developments at this
time was cybernetics. As you recall from Chap-
semantic level, relates to the
on communication engineering. 3 ) The primary
work that crystallized information theory was
theory. 1
tion,
meanings of information to individuals. Finally, the effectiveness
level deals with the influence of information on
the receiver of communication. The first section of this chapter is organized into three parts
corresponding to Weaver’s three levels of information.
The
first
ter 3,
that
2.
Wiener’s
work
in this area relied heavily
of Claude Shannon,
a
Several brief histories of the
telecommunications
movement
are available.
See, for example,
ture as
Wendell R. Gamer, Uncertainty and StrucPsychological Concepts (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1962), p.
part discusses classical in-
3.
Warren Weaver, “The Mathematics of Communica-
Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics or Control and CommunicaAnimal and Machine (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press,
tion in the
tion,” Scientific American 181 (1949): 11-15.
1948).
115
8.
THEMATIC THEORIES
engineer
His
at
the Bell Telephone Laboratories.
classic
book with Warren Weaver, The
Mathematical
Theory of Communication,
basic source for information theory 4
is
quantification of stimuli or signals in a situation.
On
the
.
Technical Information Theory
Basic Concepts.
with
Information theory provides
^
concept, entropy, borrowed from
a related
is
randomness, or
lack of organization in a situation.
entropic situation
is
you cannot know
the sky,
you might
you would probably be right.
Because weather is an organized system, certain
probable relationships (for example, clouds and
predict rain, and
On
the situation causes
you cannot preThe entropy existing in
some uncertainty. In short,
more entropy,
the less organization and
rain) exist.
the other hand,
What does
Information
is
more
this
a
have now related information to uncerand to the number of messages necessary
There is yet a third way
to view information. Information can be
^thought of as the number of choices or alternatainty
have to do with information?
measure of uncertainty, or entropy,
greater the uncertainty, the
When
a
situation
completely predictable, no information
ent.
tives available to a
The
the information.
Most people
is
results
to reduce uncertainty.
predictability.
in a situation.
way of thinking of it is to consider inforas the number of messages required to
completely reduce the uncertainty in the situation. For example, your friend is about to flip a
We
dict rain conclusively.
the
An-
it land heads up or tails up? You are
you cannot predict. This uncertainty,
from the entropy in the situation,
will be eliminated by seeing the result of the
flip. Now let’s suppose that you have received a
tip that your friend’s coin is two headed. The
flip is “fixed.” There is no uncertainty and
therefore no information. In other words, you
could not receive any message that would make
you predict any better than you already have. In
short, a situation with which you are completely familiar has no information for you.
will
come over
in the situation.
mation
which
as variable.
black clouds
it
is
amount of uncertainty
uncertain,
happen next. Entropy is best thought
Most of the situations you are
confronted with are partially predictable. If
of
sense as
have said that information
coin. Will
totally
unpredictable. Because of
the entropy in the situation,
what
A
We
other
a
of information. Perhaps it is
understand information by starting
thermodynamics. Entropy
appears.
of informa-
common
not as distant from
is
first
the
precise definition
easier to
closer examination, this idea
tion
person
in predicting the
out-
come of a situation. In a complex situation of
many possible outcomes, more information is
is
pres-
available than in a simple situation with
associate information with
few
outcomes. In other words, a person would need
more messages to predict the outcome of a
knowledge; consequently, this
definition from information theory can be confusing. As used by the information theorist, the
of
concept does not refer to a message, facts, or
meaning. It is a concept bound only to the
of
certainty or
complex
situation than to predict the
outcome
a simple one. For example, there is more
information in a two-dice toss than in the toss
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical
Theory of Communication (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1949). For a number of excellent brief secondary
sources, see the bibliography. Two sources were particularly helpful in the preparation of this chapter: Allan R.
Broadhurst and Donald K. Darnell, “An Introduction to
Cybernetics and Information Theory,” Quarterly Journal of
4.
Speech 51 (1965): 442-53; Klaus Krippendorf, “Information
more information in a
flip. Since informaof the number of alternatives,
it
reflects the degree of freedom in making
choices within a situation. The more information in a situation, the freer you are to choose
a
single die and
single-die toss than in a coin
tion
is
a function
alternatives within that situation.
The idea of information will become clearer
you understand the unit of information,
Theory,” in Communication and Behavior, ed. G. Hanneman
and W. McEwen (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975),
351-89.
after
the
116
bit.
Bit stands for binary
digit.
A
bit is a unit
THEORIES OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
used for counting alternatives. Technically, the
tion.
In the
number of bits in a situation of equally possible
outcomes is equal to the number of times the
outcomes would be halved in order to reduce
were
a
others, based
the uncertainty to zero.
lows:
Consider the following family tree. One of
the members of this family has committed a
murder for a crime syndicate. As far as you can
tell,
all
members
family
How much information
is
are equally suspect.
you might
.05,
A=
=
F
example of the
more probable
on
killer,
killer
suppose
H
than any of the
past record. Hypothetically,
distribute the probabilities as fol.05,
B=
G=
.05,
.05,
.05,
values into a formula
C=
H=
.05,
situation contains 1.88 bits
D=
.05,
E=
Plugging these
.65.
shows
that the
murder
of information or
uncertainty.
Another important concept
in this situation?
is
redundancy.
Father (A)
Son
Grandson (D)
(B)
Son
Grandson
(E)
Grandson
you discover that Son (B) and his family
(D and E) were on vacation on the other side of
the world when the crime took place. They
First,
took Father (A) with them. This message provides one bit of information, since it eliminates
half of the alternatives (A, B, D, and E). Fur-
you discover
were at home,
that
(F)
fighting, at the time
find out that
G died a year ago,
of the
all
alternatives are equally probable. Let’s
1.88/3= .62 or
providing a
is
concept,
Relative entropy is the proporof entropy present compared with the maximum amount possible. Entropy is maximum
is 3. Therefore, the relative entropy in this situation is
of information. Thus you see that this
of information.
This example is a combinatorial approach to
counting bits. The approach, which assumes
equally probable,
Grandson (H)
its sister
tainty possible
third bit
is
function of
tion
The redundancy
situation has three bits
that each alternative
a
relative entropy.
when
murder. This alibi provides a second bit of information, halving the possibilities again. Then
you
Grandson (G)
(F)
is
look again at our example. The number of bits
of uncertainty is 1.88. The maximum uncer-
Son (C) and Grandson
ther,
Redundancy
(C)
1
In qualitative
62%
is
-
.62
=
.38 or
38%
terms redundancy
is the proporof a situation that is predictable; it is a
measure of certainty. In a relation if one alternative follows from another, it is predictable and
ex-
tion
cellent for getting across the
meaning of the
information theorist’s conception of information, but it is not realistic. Often some alterna-
therefore redundant.
have a higher probability of occurring
When this happens, the statistical
approach is necessary for computing bits.5 The
tives
than others.
statistical
approach recognizes that
as
Information
Transmission.
summarized the
certain
theory,
alternatives increase in probability, entropy or
we
can
Thus the less equal the
probability of occurrence, the less the informa-
that we have
of information
of con-
to the first area
cern, the technical level,
uncertainty decreases.
Now
basic concepts
move
which
deals primarily
with the accurate and
efficient transmission of
information. Technical information theory is
not concerned with the meaning of messages,
5. For a good distinction between these, see Krippendorf,
“Information Theory.”
only with their transmission and reception.
117
THEMATIC THEORIES
This application
is
particularly important in
communication.
model of communication developed by Shannon and Weaver is shown in Figure 7.1. 6 In this model communication begins at
electronic
The
basic
a
measure of uncertainty
definition
sion
we
is
in a situation.
This
general. In information transmis-
are concerned
which the message
with the special case
itself is the “situation.”
in
Like
message, consisting of signs to be transmitted.
transmitter converts the message into a set
any stimulus field a message, consisting of
symbols or signs arranged according to rules,
has a degree of uncertainty or entropy. This
uncertainty (information) is a result of the code
of signals that are sent over
or language into which the message
The source formulates or
the source.
selects a
The
ceiver.
The
receiver
a channel to a re-
converts the signals into a
Normally,
a
message
is
a
is
encoded.
sequence of stimuli or
Ordinary
an example. This idea of
message. This model can be applied to a variety
of situations. In the electronic arena a television
signs that hit the receiver serially.
a good example. The producers,
and announcers constitute the source.
The message is transmitted by air waves (chan-
information can be applied to the predictability
message
is
directors,
nel) to the
home
receiver,
which converts
elec-
tromagnetic waves back into a visual impression for the viewer. In the interpersonal arena
the speaker’s brain
is
the source, the vocal sys-
tem the
transmitter, and the air
channel.
The
medium
listener’s ear is the receiver
the
and the
listener’s brain the destination.
The
model
final
is
element in Shannon and Weaver’s
is any disturbance in the
noise. Noise
channel that distorts or otherwise masks the
signal. The disturbance may be, literally, noise
in auditory
communication, but any kind of
interference
is
included.
concept momentarily.
We
Will return to this
First, let
formation into the model
domly, there would be 100 percent entropy.
Decoding would be difficult because of the great
amount of information in the message. But letters (or sounds in speech) are not organized
randomly. Various predictable patterns are
found. These patterns make decoding easier because there is less information, lower relative
entropy, and high redundancy. For example, an
adjective has a high probability of being followed by a noun. A q is always followed by a u
in English. Thus the overall arrangement of a
sentence
On
Shannon and Weaver, Mathematical Theory,
is
patterned and partially predictable.
the other hand, a sentence does contain
some information. Redundancy,
is
as
p. 5.
Signal received
Signal
Mathematical Theory of Communication, by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver. Copyright
of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Reprinted by permission of the University of Illinois Press.
From The
Figure 7.1.
predictability,
never 100 percent. If it were, there would be
no freedom of choicy. Once the first letter was
written, all other letters would follow auto-
at this point.
was defined
is
of a sequential arrangement such as a sentence.
If the letters in the sentence were arranged ran-
us integrate in-
In the last section information
6.
written language
Shannon and Weaver’s model of communication.
118
© 1949 by the Board
THEORIES OF INFORMATION
AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
matically. Language is blessed with moderate
redundancy, allowing ease in decoding, with
freedom of encoding.
Language information is an example of a
Markov process, in which subsequent alternatives bear a probability relationship to antece-
dent occurrences in
a chain. In a
Markov prob-
ability situation the probabilities
of alternatives
occurring vary from moment to moment. In
English there is a 100 percent probability that u
will follow q, but the probability is considerably less that an
i
will follow a
t.
Thus
in
we must talk in terms of
average relative entropy and average redunThe average relative entropy-redunsequential messages
dancy.
dancy of English
is
about
Whether the message
fifty percent.
is
—
sion is the same
to reconstruct the message
accurately at the destination. Any television
viewer with poor reception is painfully aware
of the problem. Accurate transmission would
be no problem were it not for certain factors
such as noise.
Now
you can begin to see the role of redunmessage. Redundancy compensates
dancy
in a
As noise
distorts,
at a
maximum
masks, or replaces sig-
nals, redundancy allows the receiver to correct
fill in missing or distorted stimuli.
For
example, suppose you receive from a friend a
or
letter that has been smeared by rain. The first
sentences might look like this: “How
yo— ? I a
ine. Or perhaps because of
static, a sentence of radio news comes across
as.
The Pres
ed States has —dared.
.
.
.
You can make some
rate that will
amount of noise
is
too
not exceed channel
also means using a code with
redundancy to compensate the
It
sufficient
much
present in the channel. If there
redundancy, transmission will be
it will be inaccurate.
inefficient; if too little,
The major
tion theory to
contribution of classical informa-
human
sciences
have used the technical model
is
that the latter
as
an analogue
modeling interpersonal communication.
Witness the fact that Shannon and Weaver’s
model (Figure 7.1) is one of the most frequently
reproduced depictions of communication in
for
textbooks.
Except for
coded into regular
language, electronic signals, or some other verbal or nonverbal code, the problem of transmis-
noise.
mission? Accurate transmission involves coding
capacity.
this
analogue function, informa-
tion theory has
little relevance to any domain
outside information per se. It does relate to
systems theory by suggesting that system parts
one another through informa-
are connected to
tion transmission.
side
It
also speaks to the technical
of mass communication. However,
as will
be indicated in the criticism section, these incursions into other domains do not help us
much to understand the human side of communication.
Semantic Information
To make information theory more relevant to
human communication, the notion of semantic
information has been developed. 7 To understand this concept,
ing slightly.
you must
We know
measure of uncertainty
sage.
From
shift
your think-
that information
in a situation or
is
a
mes-
technical information theory
we
learn that such information can be transmitted.
Now
sense out of these distorted
sentences because of the predictability or re-
at the semantic level we concentrate on
the communication of information, which reduces
the uncertainty in a situation. The information
dundancy in the language.
Another factor limiting accurate transmission is channel capacity. Channel capacity is
usually defined in terms of the maximum
amount of information that can be transmitted
7. In addition to the theories presented in this chapter,
some notable attempts have been made to expand classical
information theory into the semantic area. See Y. Bar-Hillel
and R. Carnap, “Semantic Information,” British Journal of
over
the Philosophy of Science
a
4 (1953): 147-57; and Krippendorf,
Information Theory.” Material in this section is taken
channel per second.
What, then,
is
necessary for accurate trans-
from Krippendorf.
119
.
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
conveyed by
message that reduces informaWhat is added
is the human element
of interpretation and understanding.
Semantic information always relates to a
specific aspect in the situation; it is about something. Further, it always reduces the number of
sages.
alternatives available in interpreting the situa-
cause
tion
is
a
called semantic information
The
tion.
Redundant, or unnecessary, information counteracts noise.
part
all
When you
the total
world on
the
Herein
a vacation at
An
two
The
tainty in a situation has been
Of
human
is
always
being’s state of
knowl-
we
have defined semantic information, we will see what happens when a person receives a series of messages about a situation.
Two
possibilities
exist.
The
we
is
simplicity
home
some
goal
a
person,
is
in
desired and
is
system if it changes the purposeful state of
Six concepts are related to the notion of pur-
may
now
together provides a
The
first
be any system in
we
a
is
on. Second, there
the individual. This
purposeful
will refer to
is
it
as a
state,
but for
person from
a course of action lead-
ing to the third element, outcome.
two
Thus pur-
posefulness consists, in part, of an individual’s
choosing to achieve an outcome by taking a
particular course of action. The fourth element
More often, though, messages overlap in
meaning. This occurrence is semantic redundancy.
For example, you may learn that the vacation
a
system, such as
the organism
bits.
took place and then find out in
It is
various unequal alternative ways exist for
achieving the goal. Communication via messages
poseful state.
equalling a total reduction of
A
a purposeful state if
of the suspects were on vacation provides one bit of information, while the message
others were
of informawith
on the system.
.
purposeful state.
that half
bit,
to Information
levels
most explicit approach
of Russell Ackoff 8
Ackoff begins his theory with the notion of
that
completely different information. Such messages are additive. For example, the message
two
Approach
see a particularly striking relation-
affects the
second
understanding of in-
of Weaver’s three
third
receive logically independent messages or
redundant messages. Logically independent
messages about the same situation convey
that
common
cybernetics. Perhaps the
individual
may
to reduce
ship between information theory, systems, and
terms of the perceived alternatives of the perthat
is
in the situation.
find the contribution of information
Effectiveness
here that
son receiving the message.
Now
we
the
be-
net effect of semantic
the impact of information
edge. Information in this sense must be defined
in
The
is
that,
removed
tion theory, the effectiveness level, deals
removed.
course, semantic information
relative to the
situation.
is
formation.
total
amount of information in the situation to
bits. When a person receives information
about something, a certain amount of uncer-
message
in a
amount of uncertainty
theory to our
you have received one
of semantic information, thus reducing the
on the
semantic information
information (receiving messages)
the time of the killing,
bit
also facilitates learning
transmitted to the person,
it is
from the
are equally probable,
receive the message that half of
them were around
It
receiver.
amount of information
three bits of information are found in the situation.
of the
To summarize,
gangland-killing example has eight
possible killers. Since
Redundancy plays the same role on the
it does on the technical level.
semantic level as
to the theory at this point
in the
model
is
the probability that the individual
will take the particular course
second mes-
efficiency is
was on vacation while his
son and grandson were home together,
fighting. The information that the father was
on vacation is redundant; it occurs in both mes-
of action.
Fifth,
the likelihood that the specified out-
sage that the father
8. Russell Ackoff, “Toward a Behavioral Theory of
Communication,” Management Science 4 (1957-58): 218-34;
and Russell Ackoff and Fred Emery, On Purposeful Systems
(Chicago: Aldine, 1972).
120
.
.
THEORIES OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
come
will occur as a result
The
action.
final
purposefulness
is
of the course of
concept crucial to the idea of
value,
which
is
the importance
of the outcome to the individual. Next
we
information.
will
define a purposeful state.
A
formation
purposeful state requires the following
conditions: First, at least
must be
of action. Third, the message may motivate,
changing the value of the outcome. We can
easily relate the first
are present in a purposeful state
These must
efficiencies
There must be
tive will
a probability that the
from
either
outcome
of the courses, and
person must want the outcome: The
must have value for the person.
Finally, the
The
woman
is
a
the
one has
now
as her choice
efficiencies
fects the
outcome: joining the army or joining the peace
and
This message regarding the efficiency of
army
of the
among
given course will be chosen.
The second kind of effect
is instruction
While
a clearer basis for
choice
higher probability of leading to
the goal, she then is in a purposeful state. She
information provides
make a choice that has a chance of getting
her to foreign lands. But suppose she fails the
physical examination for the army. The army is
directly changes the efficiencies. This
if
a
by making the
can
no longer an
this
available choice.
theory, she
state,
since
no
is
no longer
in a purposeful
is
efficiencies
known,
instruction
change is
accomplished by providing the person with
knowledge and competencies that will enable
that person to achieve the outcome via a particular course of action. In our example the
As conceived by
alternative choice
By
the perceived
alternatives, information af-
purposeful state by altering the proba-
bility that a
available to her,
increases the proba-
she will join the Peace Corps.
reducing the uncertainty
ing foreign lands has value for her. She could
take two courses of action to achieve the desired
is
that one alternabe chosen. For example, suppose our
bility that
interested in seeing the world. Visit-
corps. If each course really
outcome
receiving information about the
reduces the uncertainty involved,
which changes the probability
States.
of purposeful state can be clarsimple example. Suppose a young
definition
with
ified
(efficiency),
young world traveler is leaning toward joining
the army when she receives information that
most WACs are stationed at bases in the United
the probabilities or efficiencies cannot be equal.
goal
of action
and each has a
probability of leading to the desired
be viable choices for the person to use in achieving the desired outcome. Further, the courses of
action must have some degree of efficiency:
will be achieved
kind of effect to semantic
You will recall that semantic inequal to the reduction of uncer-
tainty in a situation. If various courses
two courses of action
available to the individual.
is
woman may
available.
Another condition that might occur is for the
efficiencies of the courses of action to be equal.
In this case there is no basis for choice, and once
again the young woman is out of a purposeful
state. In short, she must have various ways of
seeing the world, and one must be a more likely
course. Recall Ackoff’s thesis, which is an answer to this third-level problem: Communication via messages affects the system if it changes
the purposeful state of the organism.
Messages may affect the purposeful state of
the individual in three ways. First, a message
may inform, in which case the probabilities of
choice are altered. Second, the message may
instruct, changing the efficiencies of the courses
121
be shown how to manipulate the
assignment process in the WACs in order to be
assigned overseas. This instruction increases the
of the army for reaching her goal.
of messages on a system is
Motivation is the result of a change
in value. The woman in our example would, of
course, have several goals (outcomes) of value
efficiency
The
third effect
motivation
is owning
outcome of seeing the world
owning a restaurant, she
to her. Let us say that a different goal
a restaurant. If the
has a higher value than
will pursue
it
with one of the courses of action
may receive a message that
described. But she
increases the desirability
rant,
thus changing the
poseful state.
of owning a restauoutcome of her pur-
THEMATIC THEORIES
Ackoff s theory rounds out our brief survey
of information theory. Classical information
theory, which is primarily technical, deals with
temological assumptions of the theory are not
measurement of information for purposes
of accurate and efficient transmission. The
theory of semantic information shows how the
receipt of information in messages reduces uncertainty. Finally, Ackoff s effectiveness theory
broadens the scope of coverage to include the
effect of messages on purposeful systems.
The extensive literature on information
theory has been touched but lightly here.
This short summary of some key points briefly
illustrates how information theory has added
dimensions to our understanding of commu-
ant captures the essence of the argument:
the
nication.
many
human communication. Roger Con-
considered appropriate for understanding
aspects of
When
voked
Shannon’s theory first appeared it proof optimism, not only in the telephone
for which it had clear technical applicabut also among biologists, psychologists, and
a lot
company
tions,
who hoped
the like
which
it
would
illuminate the
.
.
.
Many
critics
have centered on the ill-advised
symptom of this
problem. The usage of the term
Criticism
is
Its
problems
lie
usefulness but in the claims
indispensable for
not in
made
its
for
it
information theory
technical
as
by some
largely
on information
theory,
we commonly
term information
about information
it.
One
has
critic
as
used by these theorists
is
so
human communication,
new definitions
of the term under the old rubric of information
that have caused even more befuddlement. 13 Of course, terminological confusion is
only a symptom of the problems involved in
stretching the concept to fit alien domains.
Three such problems have been cited frequently
now
in the literature.
The
first
is
that information theory
de-
is
signed as a measurement tool based on statistical
full
procedures.
Human
messages
complexity are not easily broken
in their
down
into
Communication (Cambridge:
Criticism of information theory can be found in
on which
Roger C. Conant, “A Vector Theory of Information,” in
Communication Yearbook 3, ed. Dan Nimmo (New
many
my summary
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979), 177-96.
Anatol Rapoport, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Information Theory,” Behavioral Science 1 (1956): 303-9; also
Systems Research for the Behaviorist Scien-
Buckley (Chicago: Aldine, 1968), 137-42;
Rollo Handy and Paul Kurtz, “Information Theory,” in
American Behavioral Scientist 7, no. 6 (1964), pp. 99—104;
tist,
at all
theory
relies:
Modem
not
other scholars have developed
ix.
sources, including the following,
reprinted in
is
understand
to apply to
difficult
guage of physical science is inadequate for discussion of what is essentially human about
human communication.” 9
Most criticism of information theory relates
to the standard of appropriateness. 10 The episHuman
such odds
“theory of signal transmission.” 12 Because the
argues in his 1978 third edition that “the lan-
Colin Cherry, On
M.I.T. Press, 1978), p.
at
suggested that the approach be retitled the
of the original information theorists, system
theorists,
and scholars outside of these areas
9.
who looked to information theory for answers
it cannot provide.
Its original formulators,
Shannon and Weaver, hoped to use the theory
as a covering model for all human and machine
10.
communication.
However, even Colin Cherry,
whose famous 1957 treatise on communication
was based
is
with popular meanings for information that a.
great deal of confusion has resulted. Ironically,
developing advanced electronic communication
devices.
in
communication .* 1
use of the term information as a
Clearly information theory
ways
animals, people, and perhaps even
Although the theory has
been put to use in these ways, the results have not
been spectacular at all.
Shannon’s theory provides practically no help in understanding everyday
cells,
societies use information.
ed. Walter
11.
Conant, “A Vector Theory,”
12.
Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, “Concluding Review,
tion
Theory
in
Psychology, ed.
Free Press, 1955), p.
13.
122
p. 178.
in Informa-
Henry Quastler (Glencoe,
111.:
3.
See, for example, Krippendorf, “Information Theory.”
THEORIES OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
observable, measurable signals. Although the
phonetic structure of language is amenable to
analysis,
when you add
we move to a topic that has
seen particularly fruitful applications in compresented. Next,
munication research: theories of cognitive
paralinguistic cues, not
mention kinesic and proxemic features, information theory becomes virtually useless.
Also, many of the codes used in human communication are continuous, not discrete; that is,
literature
they do not consist of off-on signals. Such
codes are difficult to fit into the mathematical
mense. The theories included here represent
only a sampling of this work. So although the
paradigm.
theories
to
complexity.
At
A second problem of applying information
theory to human communication is that the
theory downplays meaning as the topic was
developed in the
are far
ceived by a listener,
point a qualification stated several
of information processing
summarized here
from exhaustive.
is
The
im-
are important, they
“Standard Theory”
chapter. Even if we were
amount of information rewe would know nothing of
“Standard theory”
last
able to predict the
this
times in this text must again be reiterated.
because the
is
placed in quotation marks
work summarized
in this section
does not constitute a single theory. It was not
organized by a particular scholar or group of
the degree of shared understanding between the
communicators or the impact of the message on
scholars. Rather, this
them.
research findings of cognitive psychologists in
information theory does not deal
with the contextual or personal factors affecting
an individual’s channel capacity. For example,
this
Finally,
individual learning,
to
comprehend
which changes one’s
untouched
certain types
Newer
chology
one of the most dynamic
research
is
ing,
is
fields in the
is
three-dimensional: encoding/decod-
stages,
and integration. Together these
elements constitute
a
general
framework
for
understanding cognition. Figure 7.2 depicts the
three dimensions. 15 We deal with the first two
received, organized,
is taken up separately in the
next section under cognitive complexity.
Encoding refers to all of the activities in-
here; integration
and used. For the most part these
As such they may not appear at first
to relate to communication. Keep in mind,
however, that the basic commodity of commuindividual.
volved in transforming information into messages. Speech (and
encoding
information, and information processing on the intrapersonal level is an integral
is
part of the
composite of
based on the excellent synopsis of C. David Mortensen. 14 His
model for organizing information-processing
theories cover processes that occur within the
nication
is
The following summary
Theories of Information Processing
This section covers a variety of theories that
deal, not with the nature of information, but
with the ways persons deal with informastored,
a
called “standard”
behavioral sciences.
in this area.
— how information
is
does not imply that the findings reported here
are universally accepted. Indeed, cognitive psy-
is
ap-
proaches such as that of Ackoff help to improve
tion
is
it represents the mainstream of
psychological thought about the basic processes
of cognition. Also, the use of the word standard
of messages and
in classical theory.
work
work
only because
ability
ultimately one’s capacity to receive signals,
left
century. This
14.
communication process.
(New
15.
123
derivative, writing) are
communication. Decoding
C. David Mortensen, “Human Information Processin Communication: The Study of Human Interaction
York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), 69-124.
ing,”
This discussion is divided into two parts.
standard information processing theory is
First,
its
activities in
Ibid., p. 80.
THEMATIC THEORIES
involves the transformation of sensations into
stages of information processing:
meaning. In communication decoding activities
include listening and reading. Perception of
nonverbal signs is also a decoding activity. Here
central processing, storage,
we
see an
and
sensation,
recall. Sensation
involves receiving signals from the environ-
ment. These signals include energy that stimureceptor organs such as the eyes and ears.
important distinction between
lates
psychological theories of information process-
Actually, sensation
is
a rather
complex
process.
ing and classical information theory. In classical
Before any stimulation can enter the nervous
theory information
system, the receptor nerve fibers must be
is
thought to exist apart
a quality of the signal.
from the individual as
Most cognitive psychologists, however, would
agree that signals merely present sensory
stimuli and that information results from the
vated.
is
closely at the four primary
From “Human Information
Copyright
which
A
a
receptor
receptor
ceeding ten-to-fifteen hertz.
Processing,” in Communication: The Study of Human Interaction, by C. David Mortensen.
© 1972 by McGraw-Hill. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Figure 1 .2.
acti-
cell “fires”
cell will
not
minimum level of energy
impinges upon it (light, sound, and so forth).
For example, auditory nerves normally will not
be excited until sound waves reach a level ex-
processing activities of encoding and decoding
more
level at
activate until a certain
within the individual.
Let us look
The
the arousal threshold.
Information-processing model.
124
THEORIES OF INFORMATION
Our
AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
sense organs are almost always being
stimulated in one
way
or another, which means
that the sensory systems
tual
The
must cope with a vironslaught of stimulation most of the time.
cocktail party situation illustrates this oc16
In a crowded room one must attend
currence
.
to a single
message
We
other stimuli.
at a
time, separating
it
from
selectively filter stimulation.
Although the research evidence on
this
point
is
ceptual organization direct the organizing process. Although we do not have space to explain
these here, any general psychology text lists
We are all aware that attitude and motiva-
them.
tion affect perception.
and motives of the
feelings, attitudes,
affect
well supported by research and
rience.
One
mixed, stimuli appear to be filtered not only by
the sense organs according to stimulus prop-
not to
example, loudness, brightness) but
by the brain s use of previous experience to
assign meaning and relevance to certain stimuli
over others. Without the individual’s aware-
“fits” into
erties (for
One’s
moment
how
sensory
stimuli are filtered and organized. This truism
of the reasons you
listen to
someone
cocktail party
is
your
else’s
common
may
it
that the other conversation
attitudinal or motivational state
of the moment.
Storage or
memory
formation processing.
is
the third stage of in-
A
great deal of research
ness, the brain apparently screens out irrelevant
on memory has been done
stimuli and organizes sensations into potentially
much of this work
meaningful
perceptual organization go hand in hand.
units.
For example,
someone
in a
when you are talking with
crowded room, your brain filters
out extraneous stimulation from other conversations. One of the reasons for this is that your
conversation is a coherent and organized in-
and
teraction,
bits
and pieces of other conversa-
tions are not meaningful to this organized pattern. However, at times someone standing
is
expe-
hard
conversation at a
find
it is
in
psychology.
clear that
From
memory and
Our
memories affect central processing, and in turn
memory is facilitated by organization. Specific
percepts are not stored independently in drawers of the brain. Rather, they are integrated into
complex
Memory
webs of knowledge.
hierarchical
is
thus facilitated by the anchor of
context. Likewise, one never
remembers
just
nearby says something that strikes a familiar
note, and your brain takes your attention off
your immediate conversation so that you tune
one piece of data; it is remembered by association with something else. In other words,
thinking and remembering are intimately tied
together. For these reasons certain mnemonic
into the outside
devices, such as
comment. Sometimes you may
even fake attention to your partner while you
are paying attention to someone else’s conversation.
is
The
recall.
The second
stage of information processing
central processing,
or perception. Here data that
to
rules or laws
first
Our memories
is
are organized according
with
recall
being closely tied
The
individual plugs certain recalled im-
model and rebuilds an entire
sequence of events. Often what you “remember” about an event is not what really happened
but your construction of what logically could
It is well known that the conof a stimulus, the background in which it is
presented, is important to how the stimulus is
of
word out of the
aid memory.
pressions into the
Sensations are
text
A number
a
list,
of information processing
our organization of past events. Long-term
is therefore largely a matter of reconstruc-
tion.
ingful patterns.
perceived.
in a
recall
one another and organized into mean-
related to
final stage
to event models,
have entered the system are assigned meaning
and prepared for entry into storage or memory.
An important aspect of perception is the organization of the sensory field.
making
of each item
letter
have happened under the circumstances.
Recall
of per-
is
a vital link
between decoding and
16.
Colin Cherry, “The Cocktail Party Problem,” Discov-
encoding. As messages are decoded, they are
integrated into an organized structure of mem-
ery,
March
ories
1962, p. 32.
125
where they
reside in association
with other
THEMATIC THEORIES
of the memory hierarchy. Encoding
aspects
volves the stimulation of a part of the
in-
number of studies applying
sive
memory
plexity to interpersonal
system so that appropriate data are recalled and
used to formulate messages.
theories are placed here because
Theory
Criticism of Standard
lar
theory would be unfair. In
work
in
were
a
fact, until
singu-
The
the past
ters
cognitive psychology
area of standard theory
good example of research done
in
bits
is
and
tive
.
.
the
view of man
as
purely
a
domain,
product of his
— as reactive creature warding off
diversity — becomes increasingly erroneous.”
a
19
It is a mistake to think of
cognition as a series of discrete events occurring
over time. “Stages” should be interpreted
Levels of Integration.
Schroder, Driver, and
Streufert have presented an appealing theory of
loosely as overlapping processes that interrelate
a
.
past
chinelike fashion.
form
is
complexity of the conceptual structure in-
creases in regard to a given stimulus
whole, to image information processing as a
linear sequence of events that operate in a maa
humans
the field
struct covering laws. Further, they tend to be
process oriented, rejecting fine analysis. As
Schroder and colleagues write: “As the integra-
two cauAlthough many researchers
leave standard theory,
contributed to this field know otherwise,
they have a tendency, in looking at the work as
ularly
two domains,
of research to such areas as
group communication, organizations, and media effects.
Cognitive complexity theories attempt to
uncover processes by which persons make sense
of their surroundings. They seek correlations
and patterns of behavior, but they do not con-
who
in
chap-
persuasion,
section of this chapter.
to
their direct
in the
ripe for extensions
however, a number of theoretical
frameworks for understanding cognition have
arisen. We will look at two of these in the next
we
fit
on interpersonal communication. Although
work has been done on cognitive com-
plexity outside these
a
years,
Before
as easily
little
pieces without an overarching theory. In recent
tions are in order.
work could
Crockett’s
could be faulted for failing to develop middlerange theories to guide research on information
processing.
of
relevance to information processing, although
Criticizing standard theory as if it
decade or so
com-
cognitive
communication. 18 The
concept of cognitive complexity is relevant to
several themes of communication. These
cognitive complexity. 20 This theory states that
cognitive functioning involves two types of
whole. Also, information processing
is highly individual and is not particcomparable with machine behavior. 17
elements.
The first are the content variables,
what an individual knows the
—
17.
consisting of
Cognitive Complexity
person’s thoughts, attitudes, needs, and so
In this section
we
will look at
which
cognitive complexity,
of information processing
One
theory
and
his
is
two
theories
of
forth.
the third factor
listed in
identify these elements as
dimensions of cognition. The second kind of
element consists of structural variables, or how
Figure 7.2.
Harold Schroder
colleagues and the other to Walter
is
The authors
attributable to
an individual processes the dimensions.
structural variables are rules or
The
programs for
Crockett.
An
active
18. This literature is reviewed in part by Claudia Hale,
“Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity as a Determinant of
Communication Effectiveness,” Communication Monographs
47 (1980): 304-11.
group of speech communication
scholars under the tutelage of Jesse Delia at the
University of
Illinois
has produced an impres-
19.
For an elaboration of
criticism, see Geoffrey
Information Processing,” in
of Information Processing, ed. G. Underwood (New
Underwood, “Concepts
Strategies
York: Academic Press, 1978), pp. 1—22.
Harold M. Schroder, Michael
Streufert,
this
in
Human
S.
Driver, and Siegfried
Information Processing:
Individuals and
Groups Functioning in Complex Social Situations
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. v.
20. Ibid.
126
(New
York:
THEORIES OF INFORMATION
AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
combining or integrating the content variables.
In short, dimensions are units of thought, and
rules are relations
among
units.
People vary in terms of the complexity of
their cognitive systems.
numerous and
Where dimensions
are
of integration many, cogsaid to be high. Where
dimensions are few and integration simple,
levels
nitive complexity
is
complexity is low. Although a correlation may
be present between the number of content ele-
ments and the degree of connections among
dimensions, integrative complexity primarily is
number of connections, including the variamong dimensions.
is accomplished through a
hierarchy of rules. The hierarchy can be simple
the
ety of rules,
Integration
Dimensions
Relations
A.
Low
integration index: relatively fixed
B. Moderately low
organization
C. Moderately high integration index:
combinations and higher-order rules
integration index: few alternate
combinations
alternate
D. High
integration index: possibilities for
relationships
Figure 7.3. Levels of integration.
127
complex
THEMATIC THEORIES
The
or complex.
focus of this theory
differences in integrative complexity.
on
is
Where
ing
in-
integration
is
high,
numerous
We
we
An
important claim of this theory is that the
of integration used in processing informadepends on both the predisposition of the
individual and the conditions of the environment. In other words, how we process information in any given setting depends on the
complexity of our cognitive system and the
demands of the situation. This idea leads to
Shroder and colleagues’ U curve hypothesis.
discuss the levels of integration,
should note that level of integration
is
level
not
tion
viewed by Schroder and colleagues as a trait. A
single individual has higher levels of integration
in some areas than in others, and the degree of
complexity in one’s knowledge, even in a single
area, may change over time.
Figure 7.3 contrasts varying levels of integration. 21 These models are not intended to represent discrete types but points along a continuum of complexity. The first figure (a) we
see low integration; the dimensions are connected to one another via a single rule. The
individual has no flexibility or freedom to
among
choose
next figure
Individuals generally reach their highest level
of integration
some optimal
ty.
comes
the integration
is
moderately
the next level
in
(c)
Not only
parent.
hypothesize
will reach their
is
are alternate rules for relating
into use. At the highest level (d) an addiis added, and the hierarchical nature
of the information-processing system becomes
tional layer
also apparent that increased
com-
ure 1
plexity of integration brings a greater potential
.
6. 23
Let’s look at a simple
ways two
example. Consider the
for abstract versus concrete thinking. Figure 7.4
different
presents a simplified example of an integrative
different traffic conditions.
hierarchy.
learning to drive.
How
force.
level
of integration
in
With low integration the person’s think22.
Adapted from
drivers
Assume
would respond
One
driver
is
to
just
this individual has a
low level of integration in the area of driving.
The other driver is experienced, having a high
an individual processes information
depends greatly on the
of information
(1) that individuals with higher
of integration for a particular theme area
peak of cognitive complexity at
a higher point of environmental complexity
than will people with lower integration hierarchies; and (2) the difference in complexity of
processing between high and low individuals
diminishes as the environment becomes either
simpler or more complex, as illustrated in Fig-
for relating first-level combinations
It is
illustrated in Figure 7.5.
levels
ap-
comes
apparent.
is
achieved
an important difference
dimensions possible, but another level of
21.
metarules
is
Here the individual has a
applying connective rules. At
into play.
little flexibility
processing information at
of environmental complexi-
at point X, which is a
moderately complex environmental situation. 22
The shape and position of the curve, however,
are not the same for all individuals. The authors
processing
alternative interpretations. In the
(b)
in
level
This relationship
In this figure the highest level
low, the difference being that more than one
rule
creativity or
creativity.
momentarily.
we
little
Thinking tends to be
among competing
comes freedom of choice, high levels of behavioral adjustment and adaptation, and
will explore this idea in greater detail
Before
possible.
is minimized since differences are not
noted; conclusions are concrete; and compartmentalization is rife. With high integration
integrated into an abstract hierarchy of relationships.
is
stimuli
Where
rules are used to
dimensions, and rules themselves are
relate the
programmed, and
black and white; conflict
is
cross the street; Fat people are jolly.)
quite
is
self-initiative
low, the dimensions are integrated
by a single, simple rule. (For example. Never
tegration
ibid., p. 15, 18, 20, 22.
Ibid., p. 37.
23. Ibid., p. 40.
128
THEORIES OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
level
of integration. In an extremely simple
both drivers would process the sensory
information at a low level. They would also
cept to that of Schroder and his colleagues 24
His notion of cognitive complexity is not as
ramified, but his main concern is to apply this
aspect of information processing to interper-
process information at an equally low level in a
highly complex situation such as a traffic acci-
ship being
dent just ahead in heavy
ing and communication behavior.
sit-
.
uation, say a red light at an intersection in
low
traffic,
traffic in foul
weather.
At moderate conditions in between these extremes, however, would be vast differences in
the degree of integration with which the two
drivers
sonal perception. Here
good
see a direct relation-
process-
In fact,
a
of research has applied Crockett’s
cognitive complexity idea to other communicadeal
tion variables.
would process information.
Crockett, like Schroder, recognizes that a
Cognitive Complexity and Impression Forma-
24. Walter
In his well-known treatment of cognitive
complexity, Walter Crockett uses a similar con-
Research, ed.
tion.
Fruit
we
made between information
H. Crockett, “Cognitive Complexity and Impression Formation,” in Progress in Experimental Personality
Vegetables
129
Brendon A. Maher (New York: Academic
Press, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 47-90.
Meat
THEMATIC THEORIES
cognitive system consists of content elements
realm of information processing in particular,
person perception. He is interested in how indi-
and relationships among elements. Complexity
or simplicity in the system is a matter of the
relative
viduals process information about other peo-
number of constructs (dimensions) and
constructs.
The number of
constructs used
relevant.
follow:
First, individuals with complex cognitive systems
with respect to other people need not necessarily
have complex systems with respect to other domains. Second, those individuals for whom interpersonal relations are functionally important should
have more complex cognitive systems with respect
to other people than those for whom interpersonal
complex individuals are able to make
more distinctions in a situation than cognitively
noncomplex people.
tively
Crockett agrees that cognitive complexity is
trait. Individuals vary in their own
complexity across topics and over time. Further, cognitive complexity is a matter of human
development. Small children typically are cognot a general
rather global,
relations are less important. Third, a particular indi-
may show differential complexity in his interpersonal constructs with respect to different
categories of other people, depending upon the extent of his interaction with them 25
vidual
processing information in
undifferentiated terms.
growth and maturity they come
With
.
to understand
What, then, is the relationship between the
cognitive complexity of interpersonal impressions and how information about others is
processed? Crockett makes several claims.
events with greater discrimination and with
more
sensitivity to the relationships
pects
of an event. Likewise, as adults develop
familiarity and experience with a new
more
content area, they
complex
become more
among
work is especially
The main hypotheses of the theory
sonal interaction, this line of
by
an individual to organize a perceptual field is the
degree of cognitive differentiation. More cogni-
nitively simple,
Since communication involves interper-
ple.
the degree of hierarchical organization of the
as-
First,
cognitively
a relationship
Crockett
is
especially concerned about
Figure 7.5.
does not appear to exist
between cognitive complexity and the
in that area.
one
25.
U curve hypothesis.
130
Ibid., p. 54.
ability to
THEORIES OF INFORMATION AND INFORMATION PROCESSING
How-
accurately predict another’s behavior.
ever, cognitively
complex individuals seem
Although these theories take
toward
a step
impression
understanding the structure of cognition, they
do not go far enough in relating cognitive com-
formation than do simple individuals. They
plexity to other facets of information process-
distinguish
more between people
assume
in
to
between self and
complex individ-
seem to be less susceptible to stereotyping
than are noncomplex individuals.
In addition, cognitively complex individuals
The work of Schroder and his colleagues
centers almost entirely on the
curve
The work of Crockett and his followers extends the concept into the realm of
person perception, which, although a first step
tend to attribute both positive and negative
in the right direction,
also
less
similarity
others. In brief, cognitively
ing.
U
uals
qualities to others,
hypothesis.
and they are therefore less
good and bad
is still
somewhat
limited.
Such questions
as the following are worth purdoes complexity affect perception
How
likely to divide people into
suing:
groups than would cognitively noncomplex
individuals to take the perspective of another
of complex stimuli? By what strategies do individuals with high (versus low) integration understand verbal and nonverbal messages? How
is complexity of integration related to problem
solving? What is the effect of integration on
information storage and retrieval? How do developmental factors, including such predispositions as values and attitudes, affect cognitive
complexity? Of course, the theorists should not
be faulted for failing to touch every base in their
original formulations, but the heuristic value of
the theory could have been heightened by noting potential connections between cognitive
complexity and other information-processing
communicator. Thus
variables. Ironically, these theories could
Another correlation involves the reconof discrepant perceptions in another
person. Because cognitively complex individpeople.
ciliation
uals are able to put perceptions into a broader
network of understanding, they have
a greater
ability to reconcile contradictory attributes
of
others.
As
much
indicated,
discover
how
research has sought to
cognitive complexity affects
interpersonal communication. 26
The
upshot of
comnoncomplex
general
this research is that cognitively
plex individuals are
more
able than
their messages to others
tend to be adapted to the other communicator’s
constructs,
making communication more
selves be discussed at a higher level
effec-
themof integra-
tive complexity.
The second concern
tive.
hierarchy.
Criticism of Cognitive
Complexity
Cognitive complexity theories are appealing for
a variety of reasons. They meet almost all of the
criteria for
good
theory.
They provide
structure
for understanding information processing from
an actional or constructivistic point of view.
no
cognitions
for
particular reason to believe that actual cogni-
always
this neat. In fact, the hierarchy of
difficult to prove (or disprove, for
and these authors seem to take it as
self-evident. There is no doubt that cognitions
tion
present a reasonable explanation, without
into mechanistic reasoning,
hierarchical (as illustrated in Figure
is
This notion is appealing because it is parsimonious and aesthetically elegant. Yet there is
7.3).
a basis
They
falling
relates to the notion of
Both of the approaches discussed
here rest on the central claim that cognitive
how
is
is
that matter),
humans differ in conceptualizing events and in
making judgments about people. In considering
ways these theories might better serve our understanding of cognition, we note two concerns. The first relates to scope, the second to
consider the possibility of a network of clusters
validity.
of associated cognitions without
26.
are organized, but that they are
grouped syste-
matically into increasingly abstract sets
tain.
Hale, “Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity.”
As an
chical order.
131
is
uncer-
alternative organizational model,
definite hierar-
THEMATIC THEORIES
heavily by
What Do We Know about Information
Classical information theorists define information in terms of uncertainty. They
present a
theory whereby engineers can develop systems
that will transmit
messages from one location
to another via signals along channels.
Although
the concepts of the technical theory of
infor-
mation are vital in understanding machine
communication, they tell us little of the ways
humans use information. More recent developments in information theory help us understand the role of information in human life.
We
know
that semantic information helps individ-
uals reduce uncertainty in the
environment,
facilitating adaptation to complex
situations.
This process involves removing unknowns in a
stimulus situation. Information of this type has
the potential for affecting in a
number of ways
the choices people make. Information can
affect
the individual’s perception of how well
various
options will work in achieving goals. It can help
people affect systems in such
achieve a goal
also
have
more
readily.
a direct effect
causing a redirection
a
way
as
to
Information can
on one’s goal priorities,
of energy toward new
goals.
ranted. First,
all
cognition seems to be affected
132
but, second,
memory
is
events. This fact suggests, third, that all
cognitive processes are governed by
organizing
schemes. Thus, for example, perception is
structured by certain organizing principles, and
memory
is consistent with our notions
of how
events should happen. Fourth, cognitions are
never isolated but exist in a complex web of
interrelationships.
cesses
seem
Fifth,
most cognitive pro-
to be tied to language.
categories affect
tic
how we
Our linguis-
perceive, recall,
and think. Sixth, attitudes and emotions cannot
be separated from cognition: Perception,
mem-
problem solving, and other cognitive
processes are affected by these.
ory,
Unfortunately
ing
human
information process-
difficult to study. It suffers from some
of
same problems as does the work on language and meaning outlined in the last section.
The basic problem is that we must infer from
is
the
observed responses to unobservable processes.
The
alternative is to assume that human information processing is similar to machine information processing, which can be observed directly.
Information processing consists of a complex set of interrelated processes. Several
generalizations about these processes are war-
memory;
more than simple recall of stored data. Memory
seems to involve organized reconstruction of
However, great doubt
exists
as
to
whether this assumption is valid. Besides, even
machines can process information in a variety
of ways, and they therefore provide little clue to
how humans
actually think.
CHAPTER
8
Theories
of Persuasion
Until the mid-1970s persuasion was most
at these
often conceptualized as a process by which one
person or group affects, influences, or changes
our understanding of communication processes
in general and persuasion in particular go deep
another person or group. Although social
influence is still the central element of most
into the historical soil. Typically, persuasion has
persuasion,
the unidirectional,
changes-another-person concept
one-personis
now
gener-
ally seen as inadequate. 1
This approach has been
replaced by an information-processing approach that focuses more on the information
phenomena
for centuries.
The
roots of
been examined in two broad ways. The historical scholar has contributed by examining historical
including treatises, papers, and
artifacts,
With the advent of modern pscyhology and the behavioral sciences in the twentieth
speeches.
short, per-
century, persuasion began to be studied by behavioral scientists as well. Using empirical
seen as a consequence of information processing.
methods, psychologists and others have tested
many hypotheses that grew out of theories of
receiver than the
sonal change
message source. In
is
This chapter divides persuasion into four sections. The first provides a general humanistic
the past.
background
began
contemporary theories of persuasion. The second summarizes behavioristic
research that springs from the humanistic tradition.
for
The two remaining
sections divide the
mainstream of contemporary persuasion theory
into two basic groups. The first group, found in
the third section of this chapter, are theories that
link persuasion with information processing.
The second group, found in the last section of
the chapter, consists of theories of persuasion
through cognitive reorganization. 2
We
will attempt to experience the
of both the humanistic theories that
Greece and the contemporary
flavor
in ancient
behavioral theories.
When we think of theory as
1, we normally focus on
Chapter
type of the present century. Yet
many of the
in the
book
qualities
described in
the scientific
it is
clear that
of theory outlined
earlier
are present in ancient explanations
of communication. The most important historical theory of communication and persuasion is
Aristotelian rhetorical theory.
Aristotelian Rhetorical
Theory
Aristotle, considered to be a seminal figure in
Humanistic Foundations: Rhetorical
Theory
The study of communication and
not
a
new
interest.
philosophy, laid
Humans have been
is
looking
.
ler
Context (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981), chap.
2.
classical
groundwork
for
much of modern
persuasion
For discussions of this conceptual shift, see Gerald Miland Michael Burgoon, “Persuasion Research: Review
and Commentary,” in Communication Yearbook 2, ed. Brent
Rubin (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978),
PP- 29-47; and Kathleen Reardon, Persuasion: Theory and
1
a
1.
philosophy. For years Aristheory was the primary conceptual
framework used in the field of speech, and
totelian
many
psychological investigations found their
original hypotheses in the
and
his
numerous
lent integrative
This organization and review rely heavily on the excel-
133
Human
works of
Aristotle
interpreters.
work of Mary John Smith,
Action (Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth,
Persuasion and
1982).
THEMATIC THEORIES
was
Aristotle
and
a great scientist, philosopher,
of
social interpreter
works
related to the nature
nature of people. His
work
many
classical
of things and the
most concerns
that
communication and persuasion
This work
During the
his age.
fourth century B.C., he produced
is
Rhetoric. 3
“generally considered the most
is
important single work in the literature of
speechcraft.” 4 As a manual for speech making,
Rhetoric relates
most
centrally to persuasion as a
domain. In fact, Aristotle defined rhetoric as the
faculty of discovering the available means of
persuasion in any case. 5 For many years in the
field of speech rhetoric was equated with persuasion. We need to keep in mind, of course,
that this theory, along
with the other persuasion
apply to personal change in all
theories,
contexts
al,
—interpersonal,
group, organization-
and mass.
Rhetoric is a description of the processes of
speech making as well as a textbook on how to
make
by the speaker. Artistic
proofs include three types: ethos, pathos, and
logos. Ethos, ethical or personal appeals, in-
cludes
all
of the ways
a
person projects personal
on the part of the
audience. Such factors as character, knowledge,
qualities so as to elicit belief
and goodwill can be projected as ethical proofs.
Interestingly, much of the research since the late
1940s on source credibility has tested Aristotle’s
original hypotheses about ethos.
The second
proof, pathos, consists of the emotional appeals
brought to bear in the rhetorical act. The purpose of emotional proofs is to involve the audience’s feelings and to call
on
its
sympathies.
Aristotle spent considerable time in Rhetoric
discussing emotions and
how
people’s lives.
The
was important
to Aristotle
theorists, for
was seen
they relate to
third proof, logical appeal,
and other
classical
mode of persuasion and mass commuwas public speaking.
enthymemes. Examples help the audience see the
It is
important to
nication in ancient times
As
and most other rhetorical theorists are
primarily concerned with artistic proofs that are
as the essence of reasoned discourse.
Logic consists of the use of examples and
speeches.
primary
totle
directly controlled
a result theorizing at that
realize that the
time dealt with
validity
it
of generalizations about the speaker’s
speech as
a
communication channel.
For Aristotle rhetoric was essentially the
same as persuasion is for us today. In fact, many
topic.
scholars,
particularly in the fields
ject.” 6 In Rhetoric Aristotle points out the
of deduction in which concluon the
of assumptions or premises. Syllogisms
are used to demonstrate the truth or validity of
conclusions that a scientist might make. The
enthymeme, on the other hand, is a practical
broad kinds of proofs or appeals that affect persuasion, artistic and inartistic. Inartistic proofs
are the aspects of the situation and qualities of
nication process.
the speaker that are not directly controlled
clude
communication and English,
term
rhetoric
more
to
still
Enthymemes, partial syllogisms, are important in eliciting audience participation in the
reasoning process. A syllogism is defined as a
of speech
logical device
sions of a specific nature are inferred
prefer the
recent labels. Aristotle
basis
defines rhetoric “as a faculty
the possible
of discovering all
means of persuasion in any subtwo
by
the speaker. Although inartistic proofs enter the
process of persuasion in important ways, Aris3.
Aristotle, Rhetoric
Oxford University
,
trans.
Press,
Aristotle, Rhetoric
Ibid.
all
The enthymeme does not inpremises and conclusions; instead it
members mentally to fill in
missing logical steps, and thus it stimulates involvement. Contemporary rhetorical scholars
have discussed the enthymeme in depth and
W. Rhys Roberts (New York:
1924). Other translations are
have demonstrated that
4. Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Beard, Speech Criticism:
The Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal (New
York: Ronald Press, 1948), p. 57.
6.
is particularly useful in persuasion
because of its appeal to listeners in the commu-
requires audience
available.
5.
device that
,
most
it
is
a
device used in
practical persuasion.
Suppose, for example, that you are involved
in a recycling campaign and want members of
p. 1.
your community
134
to see the value
of recycling
—
.
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
aluminum
cans.
Your reasoning might follow
The earth is worth protect-
this syllogism: (1)
Saving natural resources protects the
earth; (3) Recycling helps save natural resources; (4) Therefore recycling helps protect
ing; (2)
the earth and is worthy. Since you probably
would not state all of the steps in this reasoning,
an enthymeme would suffice: (1) The earth is
worth protecting, and
requires a description of the speaker’s audience, and
of the leading ideas with which he plied his
his topics, the motives to which he appealed, the nature of the proofs he offered. These will
reveal his own judgment of human nature in his
audiences, and also his judgment on the questions
which he discussed. Attention must be paid, too, to
the relation of the surviving texts to what was actually uttered: in case the nature of the changes is
hearers
—
known, there may be occasion to consider adaptation
to two audiences
that which heard and that which
(2) Recycling saves naturesources. Or, to have the audience think
through the reasons for recycling, you might
read. Nor can rhetorical criticism omit the speaker’s
mode of arrangement and his mode of expression,
say: Protect the earth: Recycle.
nor
ral
will
fill
The audience
—
his habit of preparation and his manner of delivfrom the platform; though the last two are
perhaps less significant. “Style”
in the sense which
corresponds to diction and sentence movement
must receive attention, but only as one among various means that secure for the speaker ready access to
ery
in the rest.
In addition to the three kinds
of proof, Aristotle also discusses three other aspects of public
persuasion: delivery, style (the use of language),
and organization. The principles of Aristotle
have been discussed and expanded throughout
the ages in many ways. Some theorists have
focused on style, others on logic, still others on
the responsibility of the speaker in different per-
—
the
minds of
his auditors. Finally, the effect
of the
discourse on its immediate hearers is not to be ignored, either in the testimony of witnesses, nor in the
record of events. And throughout such a study one
must conceive of the public man as influencing the
men of his own times by the power of his discourse 8
.
suasive situations.
Aristotle has been rediscovered periodically. 7
One such rediscovery occurred early in this century. In the last century speeches were treated
primarily as literature, but as the contemporary
view of communication developed, it became
of rhetoric that speeches should
Contemporary Approaches
Rhetorical theory has undergone considerable
in the twentieth century. One of
the most important contemporary theorists is
development
Kenneth Burke, whose theory
is
summarized
in
which stimulated a return to the Aristotelian
model, was articulated most clearly by Herbert
Chapter 4. The work of I. A. Richards, presented in Chapter 6, is also associated with rhetorical theory. Several other major figures have
presented theories of rhetoric. Scholars often
Wichelns
make
clear to scholars
be seen from
a functional
in his classic
viewpoint.
1925
article,
The
“The
shift,
Liter-
ary Criticism of Oratory.” In the article he repudiates the literary study of speech making
and
tive.
calls for a
return to the rhetorical perspec-
The following
quotation, the heart of his
discussion, outlines the basic parameters of
neo-Aristotelian rhetorical theory as
today:
it
is
It
7 For a detailed survey of the development of rhetorical
theory throughout history, see Nancy L. Harper, Human
Communication Theory: The History of a Paradigm (Rochelle
Park, N.J.:
Hayden Book Co.,
books provide summaries. 9 The following
cism
is
criti-
limited to Aristotelian theory.
8.
—
to be.
tion that seems false. We do not have space to
pursue rhetorical theories here; several excellent
Herbert A. Wichelns, “The Literary Criticism of Oratory,” in Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor
of
James Albert Winans (New York: The Century Company,
used
Rhetorical criticism is necessarily analytical. The
scheme of a rhetorical study includes the element of
the speaker’s personality as a conditioning factor: it
includes also the public character of the man
not
what he was, but what he was thought
a sharp distinction between “rhetorical”
theory and “communication” theory, a distinc-
1925), pp. 212-13.
9. For excellent summaries of twentieth-century rhetoritheory, see Bernard L. Brock and Robert L. Scott,
Methods of Rhetorical Criticism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980); James L. Golden, Goodwin F. Berquist, and William E. Coleman, The Rhetoric
of Western
Thought (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt, 1976); Douglas
Ehninger, Contemporary Rhetoric (Glenview, 111.: Scott,
cal
Foresman, 1972); Richard
1979).
Theories of Rhetoric
135
(New
L. Johannesen, Contemporary
York: Harper & Row, 1971).
..
THEMATIC THEORIES
Criticism
The goal of
Aristotelian theory probably
ways that communication variables operate
within the attitude change situation. The investigators hypothesized that in addition to the
the Yale
program was
to discover
was effective in its
problems result primarily from
modern-day applications. Because the theory
employs a linear model in which a strong distinction is made between rhetor (source) and
audience (receiver), it leaves little room for interaction among communicators. As such it ne-
dimensions were also present. This hypothesis
arose out of the relatively commonsensical idea
glects the process nature of communication.
This failure is serious because of its adverse
others, regardless
day.
Its
specific
that
on much of our recent thinking about
communication. In the next section you will see
how this linear model is continued even in reeffect
cent psychological research. This criticism
and
logic.
Aristotle presents these
three elements as descriptors
but they probably
more
of message
parts,
accurately relate to di-
mensions of perception that do not correspond
perfectly with specific message appeals. This
objection relates to our criterion of validity
sion paradigm. The model begins on the left
with observable communication stimuli and
ends on the right with various kinds of persuasion effects.
The two middle blocks
and
effect.
These two factors are extremely im-
portant in understanding persuasion, because
they occur inside the person and facilitate or
inhibit persuasion.
The
Yale studies, including the theories of
persuasibility, illustrate well the deterministic,
search.
Tradition
in
persuasion was the Yale
Communication and
Change Program, conducted primarthe 1950s. This work is interesting to
in
the Yale program.
study in conjunction with Aristotelian theory
because it represents a contemporary oper-
of the
ationalization
The monographs
Hovland, Irving
cation
in the Yale
linear
series
literature are readily available elsewhere. 12
model. 10
include Carl
Change (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960);
Muzafer Sherif and Carl I. Hovland, Social Judgment (New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961).
I.
and Harold H. Kelley, Communi(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Hovland et al. The Order of Presentation
L. Janis,
and Persuasion
Press, 1953); Carl
in
classical
I.
1
1
.
Irving L. Janis et
al.,
Personality and Persuasibility
(New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959).
12. For a brief summary of the findings of the Yale
,
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
Milton J. Rosenberg et al., Attitude Organization and
Persuasion
1959);
people do with information, while the latter focus
on how people are affected by information.
Much research on persuasion took place in
Summarizing the work is
beyond the scope of this book; reviews of the
Attitude
ily
persuasion re-
difference
An Organizing Model
programs
much
One
immediately perceives a qualitative
between the theories from cognitive
psychology in the previous chapter and theories
of social psychology, represented here by the
Yale work. The former are concerned with what
Contemporary Applications: The Yale
10.
prolific research
are particu-
larly interesting, for they center on the mediating and predispositional factors between cause
behavioristic quality of
One of the most
situation.
excellent outline of the antecedent, intermediate, and outcome variables in the persua-
its three-fold analysis of ethos,
pathos, and logos. In actual practice separating
information into these categories is difficult.
feelings,
are easier to persuade than
of the topic or
illustrated in Figure 8.1 outlines
major types of persuasion variables investigated by the Yale group. 11 This model is an
because of
or appeal may, and probably
variables affect-
the
is
does, involve a combination of personal regard,
some people
The model
primarily one of theoretical appropriateness
Aristotelian theory has also been criticized
Any argument
communication-bound
ing persuasion, certain general persuasibility
search, see Smith, Persuasion, pp. 219-36.
136
re-
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
The
Persuasibility
Problem
Of particular
vary in terms of their general persuasibility,
apart from any other specific communication-
block
related factor.
at
interest in Figure 8.1 is the small
the top of the second column, labeled
communication-free. People are hypothesized to
Observable communication
The
Predispositional factors
stimuli*
original research in this area attempted
Internal mediating
Observable
processes
communication
effects
The categories and subcategories are not necessarily exhaustive but are intended to highlight the main types of
stimulus variables that play a role in producing changes in verbalizable attitudes.
Personality and Persuasibility
by Irving Janis,
et al.
New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.
Figure
8A. Major factors
in attitude
change produced by means of social communication.
137
THEMATIC THEORIES
to discover various personality correlates
of
The researchers wanted to know
what kind of person tends to be persuasible or
not persuasible. With a few exceptions, though,
this line of research reached a dead end. It became painfully obvious that persuasibility is
more a matter of internal processes than traits.
Persuasibility appears to be a complex matter
persuasibility.
involving particular interactions among the
mediational variables. In attempting to provide
clearer direction for research, Irving Janis
Carl Hovland developed
suasibility
a
and
theory of perof the
to explain the complexity
problem. 13 These authors hypothesize that inabilities and levels of
motivation to process messages. Communication receivers have varying degrees of ability in
dividuals vary in their
four areas: attention, comprehension, anticipa-
and evaluation. Attention involves focusing on the communication stimuli; it involves
the ability to pay attention to aspects of the
speaker and the message. Comprehension involves understanding the message. Anticipation
tion,
involves the ability to imagine or rehearse acceptance of a message. It requires the ability to
see yourself in the position advocated
by the
and evaluation
ties to attend,
promote
as
an inhibiting factor. High
abili-
comprehend, and anticipate
persuasibility,
but
a
high
will
ability
to
evaluate will retard persuasibility.
Of course,
alone will not determine
abilities
which attention, comprehension,
and evaluation will occur. Because
able not only to do these
things but be motivated to do them, abilities
and motives are always considered together in
the degree to
anticipation,
the person
must be
predicting persuasibility. Figure 8.2 is a contingency table outlining the various possible
combinations of abilities and motives in persuasion. The table is an adaptation of Janis and
Hovland’s outline of interrelationships among
the basic factors in the model.
The
theorists’
assumptions, related to Figure 8.2, are
lows:
(1)
A
abilities will
as fol-
deficiency in the three facilitating
decrease persuasibility.
(2)
A
defi-
ciency in evaluation ability will increase per-
Low
motivation to use facilitative abilities results in lower persuasibility.
(4)
High motivation to use the facilitating abilities
suasibility. (3)
results in higher persuasibility. (5)
High moti-
vation to evaluate leads to lower persuasibility.
(6) When all four abilities are adequate and the
speaker. Evaluation involves scrutinizing argu-
level
ments and identifying attempts
to manipulate.
will be selective, discriminating, and flexible in
what the
responding to persuasive messages.
As an example imagine that you have given a
speech to a community group on the topic of
When you
speaker
is
evaluate,
you
saying, in your
These four
criticize
own mind
at least.
can be combined in two
of analysis. The first part of
the analysis looks at attention and comprehension together as learning factors and anticipation
and evaluation as acceptance factors. In other
words, if you are able to attend to the speaker
and message and comprehend what is being
ways
abilities
for purposes
you are more apt to internalize or learn the
material being discussed. Likewise, if you antic-
said,
going along with the speaker and you are
not too critical of what the speaker is saying,
ipate
you
are more apt to be persuaded. The second
kind of analysis considers attention, comprehension, and anticipation as facilitating factors
13. Janis, Personality, chap. 12.
of motivation
is
moderate, the individual
recycling. In your speech you have presented a
in favor of recycling, involving political, economic, and conservationist points. You might expect, according
to this theory of persuasibility, to find three
kinds of members in your audience. Some audi-
number of arguments
members would be easily persuaded by
your speech. These people would be highly
motivated and able to pay attention, to comprehend your speech, and to imagine themselves going to the recycling center. Such individuals probably would not be particularly able
or motivated to evaluated your arguments. Another kind of person would be stubborn and
ence
resistant to persuasion.
138
Such individuals prob-
—
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
ably
would have low motivation and/or
to attend, to
Again, the issue
ability
comprehend, and to anticipate. Or
might be highly motivated
evaluate your arguments. A third
these individuals
ments and their needs. They probably would
have a moderate motivation and ability to attend, comprehend, anticipate, and evaluate.
This theory conceives of persuasibility as
trait.
Persuasibility
number of
interactions
suggests
exist in
among mediating
be automatically persuaded or resistant but
a decision based on your argu-
would make
caused by any
it
is
not
a singular type,
then
situation.
view by defining the main
McGuire
further contributes to
principles in-
volved in these mediational relationships. He
outlines five such principles. These principles
are important for our consideration because
they illustrate once again that persuasion
a
may be
among
it
variables within the person
and
this
indeed communication
—
is
hardly
a
simple
cause-effect relationship.
predispositional and mediating factors. If persuasibility
is
.
and able to
group of people in the audience would be adaptable and flexible. Such individuals would not
condition, not a
important, for
that significant individual differences
terms of being influenced across situations 14
We have already seen that influenceability is
the consequence of complex relationships
The
must
first
principle of influenceability
mediational principle.
have several variations, depending on the individual combination of factors present in the
is
the
This relatively simple
what we have said above, that
mediated by a number of inter-
principle restates
persuasibility
persuasible or nonpersuasible person.
is
vening variables.
Hovland and Janis’s theory of
we must realize that this attempt
One
cannot understand the
In reviewing
persuasibility,
William J. McGuire, “The Nature of Attitudes and
Attitude Change,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology,
vol. 3, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), pp. 136—314; see also
McGuire, “Personality and Susceptibility to Social
Influence,” in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research,
ed. E. F. Borgatta and W. W. Lambert (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1967); McGuire, “Personality and Attitude
Change: An Information-Processing Theory,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, ed. Anthony G. Greenwald,
Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas M. Ostrom (New York:
14.
was the
first to systematize an approach for the
purpose of structuring research. In a more
recent treatment William McGuire further
amplifies the complexity of the matter of
McGuire notes
influenceability.
that persuas-
ibility is really part of the larger condition
of general influenceability, whether in the form
of persuasion, conformity, or suggestibility.
Academic
Press, 1968), pp. 171-95.
Facilitative abilities:
Inhibiting ability:
Attention, comprehension,
and anticipation
High
High
Motives
Persuasible
Moderate
Low
Medium
Evaluation
Low
High
Not
Not
persuasible
persuasible
Adaptive
Low
Persuasible
Adaptive
Not
Not
Not
persuasible
persuasible
persuasible
Figure 8.2.
Medium
Persuasible
Combinations of abilities and motives as they
139
Persuasible
relate to persuasibility.
Persuasible
—
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
relationship between personality and persuasibility without considering the ways various personality factors affect such mediators as
intelligence, age, self-esteem, and anxiety.
The second principle is that of compensation
This principle states that various mediating factors will
have opposing
effects,
thus tending to
compensate or cancel out one another. An important corollary of the compensation principle
is
that the intermediate levels
variables
maximize
is
variable, a
that
another variable
but
all
influenceability.
The reason
when
for this
on one
first,
of compensating
a particular person is high
compensating low level on
may
cancel out the effect of the
com-
relevant mediating variables
bine optimally
middle of the range. For
an overly simple example, consider the
at the
hypothetical relationship
ity:
is
among
three vari-
and influenceability. Imag-
ables: age, anxiety,
ine that age
inversely related to influenceabil-
Younger people
more
are
easily influenced
than older people. Imagine further that anxiety
is
positively related to influenceability:
anxious people are
more
Now,
relaxed people.
More
easily influenced than
age and anxiety are
negatively correlated (younger people tend to
be more anxious), these variables will cancel
each other out
if
extremes, and influenceability will be highest in the middle range
at the
among middle-aged
people
who
are
moder-
ately anxious.
The
third principle
principle,
affects
which
is
the situational-weighting
states that the
how much
type of influence
difference will be found in
audience influenceability. McGuire discusses
three types of influence: suggestion, conform-
Conformity
is
An-
mediating
one
searchers have found that self-esteem correlates
negatively with persuasibility. But since self-
esteem correlates differently with other variables such as depression and withdrawal, the
investigator cannot really understand the net
effect of self-esteem on persuasibility without
knowing how it intercorrelates with the
two variables. Suppose, for example, a
who has low self-esteem is depressed
and withdraws. Such a person would not exfirst
other
person
pose himself or herself to many communicative
messages and therefore would be a poor message receiver, thus lowering persuasibility.
Fifth
is
the interaction principle,
which con-
cerns the mediating variables in the person that
create individual persuasibility differences.
These variables
communication-
interact
with other external
variables, such as source and
message, to determine the final actual change.
This principle, of course, argues against a
strictly general persuasibility factor.
What
specific
de-
group pressure influence. People vary
moderately in the degree to which they will be
influenced by conformity pressure. By persua-
McGuire means complex discourse
this is that the
another in different ways. For example, re-
these principles
mean
interrelationships
within that person.
dif-
fined as
sion
way of saying
variables within a person will correlate with
to our underis
that
which a person is influenced by a
persuasive message depends on a number of
ference between people in their degree of
suggestion-influenceability.
Fourth, the confounding principle states that
variables cluster together into syndromes.
other
standing of persuasion and persuasibility
and persuasion. By suggestion he means
simple messages that require little attention on
the part of the listener. Most people are easily
is little
suasion requires abilities to attend and comprehend and since people vary in these abilities, a
great deal of difference exists among people in
terms of how much they will be influenced by
persuasive communication.
the degree to
ity,
influenced by suggestion, and there
involves message elements that are more
difficult, such as rational argument. Since per-
among
We may
the factors
never be able to
find strong singular correlates
of persuasibility
because of the numerous possible combinations
of individual-difference variables within the
person.
The more
approach thus seems
broad principles involved in
has done, and to
hypothesize specific types of persuasibility, as
fruitful
to be to define the
the process, as
that
140
McGuire
.
.
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
And
did Janis and Hovland.
so,
according to
McGuire, you could not easily predict who
would and who would not be influenced by
your recycling speech on the basis of their simand motives,
example.
ple abilities
earlier
as
suggested in the
Criticism
The Yale work
because of
Some
its
has been criticized primarily
theoretical inappropriateness 15
.
have observed, for example, that
the Yale studies represent a modern-day, empirical elaboration of Aristotelian theory. As such
the
critics
model employed by the Yale group
is overly
ignoring interaction and feedback. The
linear,
underlying model of this
of causal
fect.
links
work
from message
The work
leaves
little
An
attitude usually
is
defined as a pre-
disposition to act in a positive or negative
way
toward the attitude object, although the correlation between attitude and behavior has been
shown to be tenuous. At any rate much persuasion research has focused on attitude change. The
information-integration approach is one of the
most credible models of the nature of attitudes 16
.
According to this theory, an individual’s atsystem can be affected by information
that is received and integrated into the attitudetitude
information system. All information has the
potential of affecting one’s attitudes, but the
degree to which
suggests a series
it affects attitudes depends on
The first is valence. Valence is an
judgment about the degree to
information is good news or bad
to receiver to ef-
two
room
individual’s
for
been important in persuasion
struct attitude has
theory.
human
action,
variables.
since people are seen as behaving
primarily in accord with external pressures and
news.
internal mediators.
generally will be viewed as good; if not,
On
which the
If it
supports one’s beliefs and attitudes,
it
it
probably will be seen as bad. Of course any
particular piece of information will be evaluated
in terms of a scale from very bad to very good.
The second variable that affects the importance
the other hand, this tradition has been
its heuristic value. The original Yale
monographs were filled with research ideas that
for two decades stimulated a great deal of research on attitude change. Although the Yale
studies seem simplistic by today’s standards,
they were a landmark in taking a first step
toward researching actual communication
praised for
of information to
a
person
the weight as-
is
signed to the information. Weight
of
reliability. If
tion
is
a function
the person thinks the informa-
probably
higher weight will be
assigned to the information; if not, a lower
variables.
is
true, a
weight will be given. Valence affects how information influences attitudes; weight affects
Information-Processing Theories of
Persuasion
which
signed weight
is
little effect,
Information-Integration Theory
it does so. When the aslow, the information will have
the degree to
no matter what
its
valence.
For example, suppose that you have two
one who is strongly in favor of increasing the United States’ nuclear strength and the
General Background The informationintegration approach centers on the ways
friends,
people accumulate and organize information
about some person, object, situation, or idea to
other
form
friends are told that the president
15.
attitudes
toward
that concept.
My criticism of this work and the following theories is
heavily influenced
by
the excellent distillation
who
is
strongly in favor of unilateral arms
reduction. Suppose further that
The con-
you and your
is
about to
Contributors include Norman H. Anderson, “Integration Theory and Attitude Change,” Psychological Review 78
(1971): 171-206; Martin Fishbein and leek Ajzen, Belief,
Attitude, Intention, and Behavior (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1975); Robert S. Wyer, Cognitive Organization and Change (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum 1974).
16.
of Mary John
Smith, Persuasion and Human Action I have also relied heavily on Charles A. Kiesler, Barry E. Collins, and Norman
Miller, Attitude Change: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical
Approaches (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969).
141
a
i
THEMATIC THEORIES
announce
that the
United States will
initiate a
good-faith arms reduction with the hope that
the Soviet Union will respond likewise.
will this information affect
your
high weight to
titudes
it,
and
it
attitudes to-
belief, belief about, is the
will affect their at-
toward the president. One of your
friends definitely will define the information as
bad news, and
his attitude
become more
will likely
toward the president
negative. However,
your other friend will see this information as
good, and her attitude toward the president
may become more
positive.
it little
is
accurate
weight.
Con-
sequently, regardless of your initial attitude, the
information probably will not affect your
at-
toward the president one way or another.
An attitude is considered to be an accumulation of information about the attitude object,
each piece of information having been evaluated
as we have just indicated. (The exact way that
information is accumulated to form an attitude
titude
is
in dispute. 17 )
because of
new
Thus attitude change occurs
information or changing judg-
ments of truthfulness or value.
predicted probability
that a particular relationship exists
belief object
Again,
between the
and some other quality or thing.
this is a probability situation,
and one’s
belief is the predicted probability of the existence of a particular relationship. For example,
one may believe
may
in
God,
also believe that
God
that
God
exists.
One
omnipotent
is
—
probability statement of a relationship between
God and
You, on the other
hand, don’t believe this information
and therefore you assign
belief in a thing. When one besomething, he or she predicts a high
The second kind of
probability of existence.
ward U.S. arms policy? If your two friends
accept this information as true, they will assign
a
what he terms
lieves in
How
omnipotence.
Attitudes differ from beliefs in that they are
evaluative. Beliefs are probability statements of
evaluation or judgment. Attitudes are corre-
with beliefs and predispose a person to
behave a certain way toward the attitude object.
lated
Attitudes are learned as part of one’s concept
formation.
They may change
occur throughout
sees
life.
as
new
learnings
Furthermore, Fishbein
attitudes as hierarchically organized.
In
other words, general attitudes are predicted
from specific ones in a summative fashion. An
attitude
toward an object
specific factors,
is the sum of the
including beliefs and evalua-
tions, in the family hierarchy.
This formula
is
represented algebraically as follows. 19
Fishbein: Beliefs and Attitudes.
known and
One of the
respected attitude theorists
tin Fishbein. 18 Fishbein’s
tant because
it
contribution
highlights the
interactive nature
of
is
is
best-
Mar-
=
1
where
According to
Fishbein, there are two kinds of belief, both of
which are probability statements. The first is
attitudes.
For a review of the issues
Persuasion, 245-48.
17.
Ao
impor-
complex and
N
2 Bp
in this dispute, see
19.
A0 =
=
Bj
Smith,
the attitude toward object o
the strength of belief i about o; that is, the
probability or improbability that o is associated with some other concept xj
Fishbein has published several articles on this topic.
ai
=
Among these are “A Behavior Theory Approach to the
Relations between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude
toward the Object,” “A Consideration of Beliefs and Their
N
the evaluative aspect of Bj- that
ation of Xj
=
the
18.
Role in Attitude Measurement,” and “The
AB
Scales:
An
The
Operational Definition of Belief and Attitude.” These three
articles are reprinted in Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein (New York: John Wiley
distinctive feature
is,
the evalu-
o.
of Fishbein’s formula
is
that
it stresses the interactive nature of attitudes.
Attitudes are a function of a complex factor that
involves both beliefs (probability predictions)
&
Sons, 1967). For an excellent secondary source see David T.
Burhans,
number of beliefs about
The Attitude-Behavior Discrepancy Problem:
and evaluations. The example
Revisited,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 57 (1971): 418-28. For
a more recent treatment see Fishbein and Ajzen,
Belief.
Fishbein,
142
“A Behavior Theory,”
in
p.
Table
394.
8.1 will
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
help to clarify this model. According to this
conceptualization, attitude change can occur
from any of three sources.
Criticism.
ATTITUDE OBJECT
(o)->
JOGGING N =
of doubt that one can measure the overall accumulated weight and value of a belief system
TABLE 8.1
attitude hierarchy according to the Fishbein
6
of infor-
beliefs is generally accepted, there is quite a bit
value of a belief. Finally, information can add
beliefs to the attitude structure.
new
example of an
criticism
of measurement. Although the idea that
attitudes consist of accumulated and weighted
idity
can alter the believability (weight) of particular
beliefs. Second, information can change the
A simplified
Most of the negative
mation-integration theory relates to the val-
information
First,
(NUMBER OF BELIEFS
model
IN SYSTEM!
ASSOCIATED CONCEPTS
W)
(Bi)
x x Cardiovascular health
Bi J°gg in g promotes cardiovascular
x 2 Disease
B 2 Jogging reduces the chance of disease.
B 3 Jogging reduces weight.
B 4 Jogging promotes peace of mind.
PROBABILITY OF ASSOCIATION
EVALUATION
(fli)
a x Cardiovascular vigor
good.
is
vigor.
x 3 Obesity
x 4 Mental health
a2
Disease
a3
Being overweight
x 5 Friendship
Bs
B 6 Jogging
Jogging introduces
a
person to
bad.
is
bad.
a 4 Letting off mental tensions
is
x 6 Physique
is
new
good.
a 5 Friendship
is
important.
friends.
Scale for B: 0
A
unlikely association;
1
=
:
0
=
X4
X5
X6
body
beautiful
is
appealing.
disagree; 5 = strongly agree
very negative attitude; 25 = very positive attitude
PROBABILITY
*3
A
highly likely association
HYPOTHETICAL NEGATIVE ATTITUDE
TOWARD JOGGING
X2
ab
1= strongly
Scale for a:
Scale for
— very
builds better bodies.
Bx =
B2 =
.30
A0 =
.30
(.30)
EVALUATION
4
.95
ar
a2
=
=
5
.60
=
a4 =
=
a5
3
.80
*3=
a4 =
as =
4
4
=
2
Bx =
B2 =
B3 =
B4 =
Bs =
B6 =
A0 =
=
2
t
a3
a6
4
(.20) 3
=
PROBABILITY
=
a2 =
a
B 3 =.50
B 4 = .10
B 5 =-20
B 6 = .70
+
+
(.30) 5
(.70)
+
HYPOTHETICAL POSITIVE ATTITUDE
TOWARD JOGGING
EVALUATION
(.50)
5
4
3
3
+
(.10)
4
+
2
.80
.60
.50
(.95) 5
d6
+
(.60) 5
(.60)4+ (.50)2
=
6.6
143
17.55
+
5
4
(.80)
4
+
(.80)
4
+
THEMATIC THEORIES
with any degree of
setting a researcher
them
reliability.
would
In the natural
have to
Sherif and his colleagues found that individ-
with criticizing research
judgments of things and people are highly
and depend on one’s initial orientatoward the world. The psychological literature shows that people make judgments about
things based on anchors or reference points.
Suppose that you are involved in an experimental situation in which you are asked to
judge the relative weight of five objects. On
what would you base your judgment? If the
experimenter handed you a weight and told you
it was ten pounds,
you would first feel the
reference weight and then make judgments
about the other objects based on the kinesthetic
feeling you received from the known weight. In
this case the known weight would act as an
anchor, influencing your judgment of the
method of observa-
others. In fact, with a different initial weight,
first
ual
isolate
contributing to an attitude, measure
beliefs
situational
and factor out the influence of
other elements of the system. Since this process
is
accurately,
difficult or
impossible to do, most research in
and conThis problem thus casts doubt on the
this tradition is artificial, hypothetical,
trolled.
external validity
The
of the claims.
other serious problem
studies in this area
about the
exists
tion to
is
form an
is
among
research
that serious disagreement
way one
attitude.
accumulates informa-
The
research evidence
equivocal on this point. This controversy
casts
doubt on the
internal validity
of the ap-
proach.
The
difficulty
methodology
is
that every
you would judge the same
tion, in the natural setting or in the laboratory,
One
has weaknesses.
To demonstrate
can always question the
and validity of data collection. The
fact is that this theory has been widely
acclaimed in the field. Methodological problems aside, this theory provides a useful model
for understanding the nature of attitude and
attitude change from an information-processing
point of view.
reliability
Social Judgment
Social
tion
the
is
first
with hot water, the second with cold
hand
hot water, the other in the cold water; and
few moments, place both hands in the
tepid water. Your perceptions of the tepid water
will be different for each hand because each
hand had a different anchor, or reference.
after a
Sherif reasons that similar processes operate
primarily a product
social psychologist
judging communication messages. In social
perception anchors are internal; they are based
in
Muzafer
Sherif and his associates 20 This theory finds
on
its
.
past experience.
roots in the early psychophysical research in
erence point
which persons were tested in their ability
judge physical stimuli. Using this paradigm
to
way
as
others.
an analogy, Sherif investigated the ways indi-
psychophysics hold for social judgment
as well.
The first major work in this area was Muzafer Sherif
and Carl Hovland, Social Judgment. See also Muzafer Sherif,
Carolyn Sherif, and Roger Nebergall, Attitude and Attitude
20.
Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1965). For a brief overview
of the theory, see Muzafer Sherif, Social Interaction Process
—
and Products (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), chaps. 16, 17, 18.
Several secondary sources are also available; see, for exam-
and Miller, Attitude Change, chap.
a
The
internal
anchor or
6.
144
is
ref-
is always present and influences the
person responds in communication with
The more important
the issue
is
to one’s
ego, the stronger the anchor will influence
viduals judge nonphysical objects or social
stimuli. He learned that many principles of
ple, Kiesler, Collins,
objects differently.
of anchors, you could
Take three bowls. Fill
water, the third with tepid water. Put one
in the
Theory
judgment theory
of the work of the
this idea
try a simple experiment.
what
understood.
We
will
now
look
at the central
concepts of
social
judgment theory. These include
latitude
of acceptance
,
rejection,
the
and noncommitment.
judgment experiment you would be
given a large number of statements about some
issue. You then would be asked to sort these
messages into groups according to similarity of
position. You could use as many groups as you
wished. Then you would order these groups in
In a social
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
terms of position on a negative-positive scale,
and you would indicate which groups are ac-
you personally, which are not acand which are neutral. The first mea-
ceptable to
ceptable,
sures
your
your
latitude
latitude
of acceptance, the second
of rejection, and the third your
latitude
We
of noncommitment.
can see that an
individual will approach real-life messages in
the same way. While a person has a particular
attitude about the issue, there will be a range
of
statements, pro or con, that the person can tolerate; there will also
be
a
range that one cannot
accept.
Another important concept from social
judgment is ego-involvement. Previously, an attitude was thought to be measured primarily in
terms of valence (direction, pro or con) and the
degree of agreement or disagreement. But
Sherif demonstrates that ego-involvement
is
from either of these other two
dimensions of attitude. Ego-involvement is the
significant apart
degree to which one’s attitude toward something affects the self-concept.
It is
a
measure of
how
important the issue is to the individual.
For example, you may have read a great deal of
material supporting the viewpoint that
marijuana should be legalized.
You may
feel
by the issue. But if you
smoker and have been
no doubt
are a regular marijuana
arrested for possessing the drug,
you would be highly ego-involved. Egoinvolvement makes a great deal of difference in
respond to messages related to the
issue. There is a relatively high correlation between involvement and extremity, but it is not
it is
let
The
social
judgment theory
is
occurs
when
individuals judge a message to
it
actu-
is. The assimilation effect occurs when persons judge the message to be closer to their
point of view than it actually is.
ally
Basically,
when
own
to one’s
a
message
sages, contrast
is
relatively close
message will be
of relatively distant mes-
position, that
assimilated. In the case
is
likely to occur.
These assimila-
tion and contrast effects are heightened by egoinvolvement. For example, if you were
strongly in favor of the legalization of
marijuana, a moderately favorable statement
might seem like a strong positive statement because of your assimilation; while a slightly unfavorable statement might be perceived to be
strongly opposed to one’s view because of con-
you were highly ego-involved in the
would be even greater. Supsomeone told you that
they thought possession and smoking of
marijuana should be legal but that growing the
plant on a commercial basis should be against
the law. If you were highly ego-involved in
your belief that the drug should be legalized,
you might perceive this statement to be
trast.
If
which
it is
a
judgment
theory aids our understanding of communication is attitude change. The predictions made
by social judgment theory are the following: (1)
possible for a
area in
social
Messages
falling within the latitude of accep(2) If a message
judged by the person to lie within the latitude
of rejection, attitude change will be reduced or
tance facilitate attitude change.
what social judgment
communication process.
tion to our understanding
.
fect
be farther from their point of view than
The second
us consider
theory says about the
internal anchors of position and egoOn a given issue, such as legalizaof marijuana, a person will distort the message by contrast or assimilation The contrast eftion
rather middle-of-the-road position.
person to be neutral on an issue, yet highly
ego-involved.
Now
own
involvement.
strongly against marijuana, even though
how you
a perfect correlation. In fact,
Sherif’s work that individuals judge
the favorability of a message based on their
pose, for example, that
you have read. Thus you would have a strong
positive attitude toward legalization, but your
ego-involvement might be very low if your life
relatively unaffected
it explains two important behaviors of
audiences in receiving messages. First, we
issue, this effect
strongly on the issue because of the literature
is
because
know from
is
a fine contribu-
boomerang effect may
which the discrepant message actually
nonexistent. In fact, a
of communication
occur
145
in
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
reinforces one’s
own
position
on the
issue. (3)
Within the latitude of acceptance and noncommitment, the more discrepant the message from
the person’s
own stand,
A
predict that Person
would be
the greater the expected
influenced to shift the position in the direction
However, once the message
the latitude of rejection, change will
of the message. Person B, on the other hand,
probably would have a large latitude of rejection. Ego-involvement would cause this person
to reject almost all messages discrepant from his
or her own. Since the latitude of rejection is so
large in Person B, most messages would not be
acceptable, and attitude change would not be
attitude change.
hits
A would be open to communications
ranging from positive to negative on the issue.
Person
We would
(4) The greater one’s egoinvolvement in the issue, the larger the latitude
of rejection, the smaller the latitude of noncommitment, and thus the less the expected
not be expected.
attitude change. In
summary,
social
judgment
theory predicts a curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and attitude change, as indi-
predicted.
cated in Figure 8.3.
Criticism.
In
our example of the legalization of
two people receive the
marijuana, imagine that
same message opposing legalization. Assume
this message is only moderately opposed. Person A believes that the possession of marijuana
should not be a crime; Person B adamantly
favors legalization and
is
highly ego-involved.
These two people, while both on the positive
side of legalization, would respond differently
message opposing it. The first individual
would have a large latitude of acceptance, a
to the
relative large latitude
of noncommitment, and
The major
ment theory
is its
strength of social judg-
parsimony
It
presents an intui-
tively believable set
of claims based on just a
few important constructs. Although this theory
is no longer in vogue, its aesthetic elegance
elicited great popularity in the 1960s, and it
stimulated a good deal of research, which
speaks well for its heuristic value. Egoinvolvement, which the theory presented as a
core construct, has since
become
a
mainstay in
persuasion literature.
The
basic
problem with
social
judgment
theory
a
is that it begs the question on some
important claims. It fails to prove certain key
assumptions. The theory assumes, for example,
very small latitude of rejection. In other words,
that there
is
a
sequential,
causal
mechanism
whereby judgment
as a cognitive activity precedes attitude change. All of the claims of the
theory follow from this assumption, which
may not hold. For example, the theory claims
that the
judgment process may
lead to distor-
tion of a message, affecting latitudes of acceptance and thereby affecting the potential for
attitude change. However, the same result
could also be explained by other factors. This
objection to social judgment theory casts doubt
on
its validity.
Theories of Cognitive Reorganization and
Persuasion
The
theories in this section share a common
focus on reorganization of the cognitive system. All of these theories conceive of persua-
Figure 8.3: Theoretical relationship between discrepancy
and change.
146
.
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
sion as largely an intrapersonal event in
which
self-persuasion
number of rewards that would result from not
smoking. For instance, she might imagine that
strictly
her health
Two
a
is the key. In short, persuasion is
matter of cognitive reorganization.
types of theory are presented: social learn-
a
Learning Theory
'sC-' Social
Traditionally learning theory has been a deterministic approach that presumed that people’s
behavior
Perhaps she would go to a stopsmoking clinic or other program, or perhaps
would stop cold turkey. She would then
become conscious of the consequences of her
she
In traditional learning theory little freedom is
accorded individuals to make choices about
to respond in a situation. Behavior is con-
behavior. If some of the imagined rewards actu-
how
less
ally happened, she would be induced to remain
nonsmoker; however, if negative consequences were experienced, she might decide to
begin smoking again. For example, she might
discover that she begins to gain weight as she
reduces her smoking. Ultimately, her behavior
will be affected one way or another by her own
programmed. 21
Social learning theory teaches the
a
impor-
tance of reinforcers, but unlike traditional learn-
ing theory this newer approach postulates not
only that people make choices about behavior
but that they also control the reinforcers in their
environment.
Social learning theory
is
nitive
cognitive interpretations of the consequences of
her actions. If she
attributed primarily
to Albert Bandura. 2 2 _Bandnra’ s theory
is
a
fails and returns to smoking,
she will probably be reluctant in the near future
cog-
approach to learning. The paradigm
to try stopping again.
is
stated briefly as follows: (lj) People establish
Reinforcement
goals that entail rewards or positive conse-
two
quences if achieved. (JZJ) People choose to
behave in ways that have the potential for
achieving the goals.
would
together.
behaviors are thought to increase in frequency,
while negatively reinforced behaviors decrease.
more or
that her life
reinforcers that could help her change her own
behavior. Next, she would develop a deliberate
plan to reduce smoking and then stop al-
shaped by associations and reinforcers in the environment. Positively reinforced
is
sidered to be
would improve,
be extended, that her house would not be filled
with smoke, and that she would be more pleasant to other people. In other words, this individual would be setting herself up for positive
ing and cognitive consistency theories.
is
in one’s
environment serves
The first
The consequences of one’s ac-
functions, according to Bandura.
informational
tions help the individual to learn the rules, in-
People interpret the
rewards or pun-
favorable results and
which actions lead to
which do not. The learned
Choices are affected by the perceived successes and failures of the past as well
rules are guides for
how
((3£)
consequences of behavior
ishments.
as
by anticipated consequences
as
structing the person about
<(4)
by
other words, behavior
trial
come
is shaped by interaction
between external conditions and internal cogni-
and
error.
what
to learn
reinforcement
a woman who wants
smoking. She has the ability within
herself to set that as a goal, and she can imagine
affected
As an example consider
the
For a summary of traditional approaches to learning,
is
this process they
proper to say or not say in
The second function of
motivational-, that
is,
choices are
is
the example about stopping
motivated to behave in certain
in
ways because of her cognitive understanding of
J.
Kling and Lorrin Riggs (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1971), pp. 551-613.
Social Learning
woman
smoking,
seej. W. Kling, “Learning: Introductory Survey,” in Woodworth and Schlossberg’s Experimental Psychology, ed.
W.
22. Albert Bandura,
is
by perceived consequences. One is
motivated to repeat rewarded actions and to
avoid punished actions. An individual, such as
to stop
.
Through
different situations.
tive processes.
21
to act in the future.
Children, for instance, often learn social rules
in the future. In
the consequences of behavior.
Clearly information from outside affects our
Theory (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977).
internal cognitions to a large extent. This in-
147
THEMATIC THEORIES
come from
formation can
direct experience,
social knowledge. Both role playing and modeling are mechanisms for the social development
role playing, or modeling. In direct experience
one observes directly what happens as a consequence of a certain action. The smoker referred
to put herself
through
of knowledge. This
tion with a certain kind
is mental identificaof behavior within a
The person mentally
not to argue that
tations.
result
The point
is
that learning occurs as a
of identification with others.
re-
hearses an action and imagines what the consequences would be. In trying to stop smoking,
an individual might imagine what it would be
like not to smoke and might anticipate the re-
Criticism.
The strength of
social learning
theory is its consistency with current trends in
persuasion that emphasize the importance of
individual interpretation and choice in making
wards that could accrue. The difference between direct experience and role playing is that
the former is real and direct, while the latter is
imagined and indirect. Modeling, the third
source of social learning, involves actually wit-
changes. Its external validity
ered to be strong.
nessing another person’s actions and the consequences. The woman who wanted to stop
possible sources of change, including
the factors identified by other theories
smoking might have been motivated because of
a good friend who seemed to benefit from
stopping. Modeling is perhaps the most com-
ized in this chapter.
The weakness of
scope. While
it
From
hypothesis
little
We
think
have done
a good job and punishing ourselves
believe we have let down. Self-esteem
an important determinant of self-reinforcement because the higher our self-esteem,
the more we value our own choices.
This theory represents a major epistemologi-
The
of
social
Bandura provides
help in understanding the relationship be-
—
tween what people say to others their messages
and attitude and behavior change.
—
^Theories of Cognitive Consistency
General Background. The largest portion of
work in psychology related to attitude, attitude
when we
learning theory.
summar-
communication
we
is
cal shift in the field
a
major
many of
attitudes, and behavior. Surely reinforcement and rule learning must be affected by
an important part of social learninternal standards act as reinapply these standards to our be-
when we
restricted
ignores other
beliefs,
Our
havior, rewarding ourselves
is its
it
standpoint Bandura’s approach does not help us
understand how verbal communication affects
interaction with others, yet
forcers.
generally consid-
identifies learning as a
mon way adults learn.
We have indicated that people often create
own rewards and punishments. This
is
is
the theory
source of personal change,
their
ing theory.
all
is a matter of social consensus. Indeed, this theory stresses idiosyncratic interpre-
stop smoking. Role playing
particular situation.
is
knowledge
a direct experience to
change, and persuasion undoubtedly is conof these theories begin with
sistency theory. All
the
psychology and
same
basic premise: People need to be con-
sistent or at least see
themselves
as consistent.
of
The vocabulary and concepts change from
learning and reinforcement on which this
theory is based are deterministic; but by shifting
theory to theory, and the hypothesized relation-
original formulations
among variables differ, but the basic
assumption of consistency remains. In a PsycholToday interview one of the major conships
the focus to cognitive choice and internal rein-
forcement, Bandura has adopted
and actional
set
of assumptions.
How
vidual construes and interprets events
ered to be
all
ogy
a teleological
is
an indi-
sistency theorists,
consid-
the tendency
knowledge. Further, a person’s understanding
of behavioral consequences is largely a result of
148
Theodore Newcomb, discus-
assumption: “I happen to have studied
toward balance, but that doesn’t
mean there is anything inherently good or desirable about it. Education, life itself, thrives on
ses this
important in determining personal
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
imbalances. Without them
you would
live like
an oyster, utterly passive.
Most kinds of fun
and excitement begin with inconsistency, with
the possible exception of unrequited love. The
best scientist, for example, looks for the inconsistencies.
.
.
.
My
point
is
not that
seek inconsistencies, but that
living with
them
for very long.
we
we
don’t
have trouble
The
direction of
change is very likely to be toward balance.” 23 In
system language, people seek homeostatis. In
this theme of consistency can be related
well to the system view that the goal of an
fact,
open system
(Chapter
is
self-maintenance and balance
3).
to be nonactional, as-
basically are responsive
environmental pressures. Behavior change
results from information in the environment
that disrupts balance of the cognitive system.
These theories are also discovery oriented, relyto
ing on research that aims to discover precisely
what conditions lead to change and to predict
the nature and degree of change. In short,
knowledge is not something that one participates in actively; rather, one’s
results
knowledge of the
from conditions of balance or im-
balance. People are under pressure to see the
in consistent ways.
world
The
titude
consistency theories of attitude and at-
change began
work of Fritz
mid 1940s with the
Over the following dec-
in the
Heider.
ade several additions and modifications were
made on
to
simplest possible communicative act: two
people conversing about a topic of mutual
interest.
the basic idea
of balance. Heider’s
primary contribution to consistency theory is
his introduction of the concept of balance and
of research in this area. 24
One of the first important extensions of
his initiation
Newcomb
then analyses this situation
terms of the varying orientations of the
communicators toward the topic and its effect
on their attitudes and toward each other. 25
Another theory of cognitive consistency is
in
the congruity model, proposed in 1955 by Osgood and Tannenbaum as one application of
their work on the measurement of meaning (see
Chapter
These theories tend
suming that individuals
world
Chapter 10.) Newcomb’s contriis his application of Heider’s hypothesis
communication. The model explains the
at his ideas in
bution
6)
26
This theory
is
in line
with the
work of Heider and Newcomb but extends these models by applying a measurement
technique and attempting more precise predicearlier
of outcome. This model involves three
two objects of
When the objects ofjudgment (concepts, people, and so forth) are brought into
association with one another, then congruity or
tion
basic elements: a perceiver and
judgment.
incongruity will result. If the perceiver’ judgs
ment, or evaluation, of the two elements is
consistent, then congruity exists. If it is inconsistent, there is
pressure to change.
In the remainder of this section, two prominent theories of cognitive consistency are sum-
marized. These were chosen because of their
prominence in the field and their relative completeness of explanation.
The
first is
the theory
of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger and
the second is the theory of attitudes, beliefs, and
values of Milton Rokeach.
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Leon Fest heory of cognitive dissonance is the
tinger’s
Heider’s idea was that of Theodore Newcomb. Newcomb has been primarily interested
most
in interpersonal attraction.
theories in the history of social psychology.
(We
Carol Tavris, “What Does College Do for a Person?
Frankly, Very Little,” Psychology Today, September 1974,
23.
25.
and impactful consistency
one of the most important
it is
Theodore Newcomb, The Acquaintance
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961);
p. 78.
24.
significant
theory. In fact,
will look again
Process (New
“An Approach to
the Study of Communicative Acts,” Psychological Review 60
Fritz Heider, “Attitudes
and Cognitive Organization,”
Journal of Psychology 21 (1946): 107-12; The Psychology
of
Interpersonal Relations (New York: John Wiley & Sons
1958).
(1953):
393-404.
26. Charles E.
149
Osgood and Percy Tannenbaum, “The
Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude
Psychological Review 62 (1955): 42-55.
Change,”
THEMATIC THEORIES
Over
the years
has produced a prodigious
it
function of the magnitude of dissonance present
quantity of research as well as volumes of criti-
in the
cism, interpretation, and extrapolation 27 Fes-
greater the need for change. Dissonance
tinger broadened the scope of consistency
of two antecedent variables, the importance of the cognitive elements and the number
of elements involved in the dissonant relation.
This latter variable is a matter of balance; the
more equal the number of elements on the sides
of the relation, the greater the dissonance.
Consider two examples of a low-dissonance
prediction. On a particular day you may be
faced with a decision of whether to eat breakfast. Suppose you are expecting to meet a friend
to go shopping, but your alarm didn’t go off
and you are late. You can skip breakfast and be
on time, or you can eat toast and coffee and be a
little late. You will quickly decide to do one or
the other, but in any case some dissonance will
result. This dissonance probably will be small
because neither eating breakfast nor being on
time is important. But if your situation involves
being late for work, a different variable is operating. You probably would choose to skip
breakfast and be on time. The prediction is the
same (a small amount of dissonance), but the
reason is different. The deck is stacked; a number of important cognitive elements lie on the
“getting to work on time” side of the relation.
Not only do you have a sense of obligation to
your work, you also have a need to make a
good impression on your boss, to get work
done that is stacked up on your desk from the
day before, and to avoid having your pay
.
theory to include a range of what he called
cognitive elements, including attitudes, perceptions,
knowledge, and behaviors.
Two
cognitive elements (an attitude and a behavior,
perhaps) will have one of three kinds of relationships.
The
of these
first
is
null or irrelevant,
the second consistent or consonant, and the third
inconsistent or dissonant. Dissonance
tionship in
is
a rela-
which one element would not be
It is impor-
expected to follow from the other.
tant to note that dissonance
is
a
matter of
psychological consistency, not of logical relationships. Dissonance
and consonance therefore
terms of a single individ-
must be evaluated
in
ual’s psychological
system.
what
own
We must always ask
consonant or dissonant for
is
psychological system.
More
a
person’s
formally, Fes-
tinger defines cognitive dissonance as a situation in
which the opposite of one element
fol-
lows from the other.
Two
overriding premises are found in disso-
nance theory. The
first is that
dissonance pro-
duces tension or stress that pressures the individual to change so that the dissonance
thereby reduced. Second,
when
dissonance
is
is
present, the individual will not only attempt to
reduce
but will avoid situations in which ad-
it
ditional dissonance
might be produced. These
tendencies to reduce dissonance and to avoid
dissonance-producing information are a direct
system; the greater the dissonance, the
Leon
Festinger,
A
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stan-
ford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957).
Many
now
ways
in
which we
sonance produces
Collins, and Miller, Attitude Change-, Robert
Zajonc, “The Concepts of Balance, Congruity, and Dissonance,” Public Opinion Quarterly 24 (1960): 280-96; Roger
Brown, “Models of Attitude Change,” in New Directions in
can imagine a
(New
or
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962),
Social Psychology (New York: Free
For a readable exposition showing
of cognitive dissonance theory, see
Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal (New York: Viking
Press, 1972), chap. 4. For a detailed examination of the
theory and related research, see J. W. Brehm and A. R.
Cohen, Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance (New York:
Roger Brown,
a
tension for reduction,
number of “methods”
we
for reduc-
more of the
cognitive elements. Second,
new
elements might be added to one side of the
tension or the other. Third, one might
the practical applications
&
can
ing the dissonance. First, one might change one
Press, 1965); chap. 11.
John Wiley
we
deal with
cognitive dissonance. Understanding that dis-
Kiesler,
pp. 1-85;
these basic concepts in mind,
turn to the
short
reviews of dissonance theory are available, including
Psychology
a
docked.
With
27.
is
result
come
to
see the elements as less important than they
used to be. Fourth,
a
person might seek con-
sonant information. Fifth, the individual might
reduce dissonance by distorting or misinterpret-
Sons, 1962).
150
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
One of the most
examples of cognitive dissonance in-
ing the information involved.
common
volves smoking.
Smoking
is
a particularly
Other things being equal, the
Third, the greater the perceived attractiveness
example because of the extensiveness of the
smoking habit coupled with the large amount
of information available on smoking and
health. Suppose a smoker is reading and hearing
a lot of facts about the health hazards of smoking.
This occurrence
is
bound
to
less attractive the
chosen alternative, the greater the dissonance.
good
of the unchosen
alternative, the
more
the
felt
dissonance. Fourth, the greater the degree of
between the alternatives,
the less the dissonance. If one is making a decision between two similar cars, little dissonance
similarity or overlap
produce disso-
potential exists.
nance, which might be very great, depending
on the importance of the habit and the person’s
The second
which dissonance
situation in
is
apt to result is forced compliance or being induced to do or say something contrary to one’s
on health and life. Here’s what a smoker
could do. The smoker might change the cognitive elements by stopping smoking or by rejecting the belief that smoking is unhealthy. Or the
person might add new cognitive elements, such
as smoking filters. The importance of the elements involved in dissonance might be reduced. For example, smokers sometimes say
that they want a high quality of life, not a long
life. The smoker might seek out consonant information supporting the view that smoking is
not all that bad. Finally, the smoker might devalues
beliefs or values.
This situation usually occurs
when
a reward is involved for complying or a
punishment for not complying. Dissonance
theory predicts that the less the pressure to conform, the greater the dissonance. If you were
asked to do something you didn’t like doing but
you were paid quite a bit for doing it, you
would not feel as much dissonance as if you
were paid very little. The less external justification (such as reward or punishment), the more
one must focus on the internal inconsistency
within the self. This is why, according to disso-
cide to distort the information received, saying
something like, “As I read the evidence, smoking is harmful only for people who are already
sick anyway.”
Much of the theory and research on cogni-
nance theorists, the “soft” social pressures one
encounters may be powerful in inducing
rationalization or change.
tive dissonance has centered
dissonance theory.
situations in
Other
around the various
which dissonance
is
more
likely to result.
These include decision making, forced compliance, initiation, social support, and effort. Let
us consider each of these dissonance-producing
situations. The first, decision making, has received a great deal of research attention. Salespeople call this kind of dissonance “buyer’s re-
greater
group.
from
situational predictions are
The theory
commitment one will have to that
The more social support one receives
on an idea or action, the greater
the pressure to believe in that idea or action.
The
amount of effort one puts into a
more one will rationalize the value of
greater the
task, the
that task.
which
nication theory because of
is
In short, the theory of cognitive dissonance
has had a major impact in the field of persuasion. It has won an important place in commu-
the importance of the decision. Certain
may
group, the
friends
morse.” The popular saying goes, “The grass is
always greener on the other side.” The amount
of dissonance one experiences as a result of a
decision depends on four variables, the first of
decisions, such as that to skip breakfast,
made by
predicts that the
difficult one’s initiation to a
what
it
says about
messages, information, and persuasion. 3
be
unimportant and produce little dissonance.
Buying a house, seeking a new job, or moving
to a new community, however, might involve a
great deal of dissonance. The second variable is
the attractiveness of the chosen alternative.
Rokeach: Attitudes,
that
on
of Milton Rokeach.
One of
and change
and Values.
Beliefs,
the finest recent theories
is
attitude
He
has developed an
extensive explanation of human behavior based
151
.
.
THEMATIC THEORIES
on
beliefs,
attitudes,
and values. 28 His theory
builds
on
some
pertinent extensions.
theory
the theories of the past and provides
While Rokeach’s
definitely a consistency theory,
is
it
pro-
with the object of belief and are reinforced by
literally unanimous agreement among one’s
peers. These beliefs are the truisms one counts
on: The sun shines; With money I can buy
vides a breadth of explanation and prediction
not approached by any of the other theories in
of
belief,
the area, with the possible exception of cogni-
the
first,
tive dissonance.
These are also learned by direct contact, but
they are private and not confirmable by others.
Rokeach conceives of
a
highly organized
things;
Mothers bear children. The second class
which is somewhat less central than
primitive beliefs with zero consensus.
is
which guides the
behavior of the individual and supports the per-
They involve
son’s self-regard. Briefly, he describes the sys-
stupid person;
tem
type of belief
belief-attitude- value system,
in the following
way: “All these conceptually distinct components
the countless
beliefs, their organizations into thousands of
attitudes, the several dozens of hierarchically
—
arranged terminal values
form
—
are organized to
a single, functionally interconnected belief
system.” 29
Beliefs are the
hundreds of thousands of
statements (usually inferences) that
we make
about self and the world. Beliefs are general or
specific, and they are arranged within the system in terms of their centrality or importance to
the ego.
At the center of the
system are
those well-established, relatively unchangeable
beliefs that literally form the core view of self
and world. At the periphery of the system lie
the many unimportant, changeable beliefs.
There are three hypotheses about the belief
system. First, beliefs vary in terms of centralityperipherality. Second, the more central the belief,
the
change
more
resistant
it is
belief
to change. Third, a
in a central belief will
produce more
change
overall change in the system than will a
in a peripheral belief.
Beliefs are divided into five kinds, ranging in
centrality.
The most
central beliefs are primitive,
with 100 percent consensus. This group of beliefs
are axiomatic; they are taken for granted.
Primitive beliefs are learned by direct contact
29.
Rokeach,
Human
Values, p. 215.
a
Children
to realize that they
must
at
an
rely
on
rounding out our conceptions of the world.
Authority beliefs provide answers to the ques-
whom
tions,
With
Whom
should
I
should
believe?
I
identify? and
They
are less central
than primitive beliefs and change from time to
time. The fourth type of belief, stemming from
authority,
we
is derived beliefs
These are the beliefs
from trusted sources. Finally, on the
get
periphery of the belief system are inconsequential
beliefs,
able.
make
which
When
are rather arbitrary
and change-
inconsequential beliefs change, they
impact on the system. Table 8.2,
from Rokeach’s book, lists several examples of
little
beliefs. 30
Groups of beliefs
that are organized
and predispose
focal object
in a particular
way toward
a
around
a
person to behave
that object are at-
30.
titudes. If a belief system has hundreds of thouit likewise will have perhaps
thousands of attitudes, each consisting of a
number of beliefs about the attitude object.
Figure 8.4 illustrates, in overly simple form, the
organization of an attitude.
sands of beliefs,
Rokeach
believes attitudes are of two
tant kinds that
situation
is
If a
must always be viewed
and
attitude-toward-object
toward-situation
Rokeach,
152
God; I am a
good boy. The third
believe in
I
is
authority beliefs.
is
the opinions of others in establishing their belief
systems. Primitive beliefs only take us so far in
tion.
1973).
My son
come
early age
These are
28. Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory
of Organization and Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1969); The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press,
personal perceptions lying in a
totally subjective realm:
a
One’s behavior
function of these
impor-
together.
attitude-
in a particular
two
in
combina-
person does not behave in a given
Beliefs, pp.
26-29.
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
situation congruently with the attitudetoward-object, it is probably because the atti-
your
tude-toward-situation does not facilitate a
particular behavior at that time. A common
example of this might be food preference. Your
to
attitude
toward red meat
may
say:
It is
attitude
ian
may
attitude
Avoid. But
toward eating red meat may
are a guest.
Thus
the vegetar-
eat meat, despite a private, negative
toward
This idea
it.
Fishbein’s conception,
TABLE
say:
not socially acceptable to refuse food served
you when you
is
consistent with
summarized
earlier.
The
8.2
Examples of beliefs
Type A:
Type B:
Type C:
Primitive
I
Iam
3.
My name
Primitive
years old.
believe
I
Sometimes
I
I
mother loves me.
have
a
strong urge to
kill
myself.
like myself.
Authority
7.
zero consensus
my
4.
6.
8.
in (real birthplace).
is
beliefs,
5.
9.
unanimous consensus
beliefs,
was born
1.
2-
beliefs
The philosophy of Adolph Hitler is basically a sound one, and
The philosophy of the pope is basically a sound one.
The philosophy ofjesus Christ is basically a sound one.
Type D:
Derived beliefs
10. People can be divided into two distinct groups: the
11. Birth control is morally wrong.
Type E:
Inconsequential beliefs
12.
ten
commandments
are
weak and
am
all
for
it.
the strong.
of divine origin.
think summertime is a much more enjoyable time of the year than winter.
would never walk through a revolving door if I had a choice.
The side from which I get out of bed in the morning really does influence how
13.
I
14.
1
15.
From
The
I
Beliefs, Attitudes,
and Values, by Milton Rokeach.
Copyright© 1972 byJossey-Bass,
Inc.
Beliefs
Figure 8.4.
A
simple example of the belief structure of an attitude.
153
I
feel.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
THEMATIC THEORIES
main point of both models is that behavior is a
complex function of sets of attitudes. In
Rokeach’s theory, then, the system consists of
many beliefs ranging in centrality, which are
clustered together to form attitudes that predis-
and values constitute the components of the
system, the self-concept is its guiding goal or
purpose. With these four concepts Rokeach has
tied together the theory into a cohesive pack-
pose the person to behave in certain ways. At-
complex evaluations of
titudes are
objects and
situations.
Rokeach
believes that
of the three concepts
human behavior, value is the most
important. Values are specific types of belief
in explaining
that are central in the
system and
TABLE 8.3
Value rankings (composite) for American
and
men
women
act as life
guides. Values are of two kinds: instrumental and
VALUES
MEN WOMEN
terminal. Instrumental values are guidelines for
living
on which we base our
daily behavior.
Terminal values are the ultimate aims of
toward which we work. In his extensive
search
on
Rokeach has
values,
isolated
life
re-
what he
considers the most common values in our society and has developed a ranking scale to assess
individuals’ value systems. The ranking task is
based on the hierarchical nature of the value
system, in which values range in importance to
the person. Table 8.3 lists the eighteen terminal
and instrumental values isolated in the theory. 31
The numbers in the columns indicate the composite rankings for
A world at peace is
American men and women.
the most important terminal
value for men and women, and honesty is the
most important instrumental value. Rokeach
has conducted several studies with his scale
and provides
a
breakdown of attitude rankings
into various categories
of age,
race,
and educa-
tion. 32
One other component in the beliefattitude-value system that assumes great overall
importance
the self-concept. Self-concept con-
is
of one’s beliefs about the self. It is the
individual’s answer to the question, Who am I?
sists
Self-concept
is
particularly important to
the
system because “the ultimate purpose of one’s
total belief system,
is
to maintain
which includes one’s
values,
and enhance ... the sentiment of
Thus while beliefs, attitudes,
self-regard.” 33
31.
Rokeach, Human
32.
Ibid., chap. 3.
33.
Ibid., p. 216.
Terminal Values:
A comfortable life
An exciting life
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner
harmony
Mature love
National security
57-58.
18
1
1
15
9
2
15
3
5
13
14
10
3
8
2
5
12
14
11
17
16
Salvation
Social recognition
12
6
16
4
6
17
True friendship
11
9
8
7
Self-respect
Wisdom
Instrumental Values:
Ambitious
2
4
Broadminded
4
Capable
8
5
12
Cheerful
12
9
10
Courageous
5
Forgiving
Helpful
6
6
2
Clean
Honest
7
8
7
1
1
Imaginative
18
18
Independent
11
14
Logical
15
16
Loving
Obedient
14
17
16
17
9
15
13
13
Intellectual
Responsible
Self-controlled
154
13
10
Pleasure
Polite
Values, pp.
4
18
7
3
3
10
11
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
age.
At the heart he one’s self-conceptions, and
is filled out by the other components.
the flesh
Rokeach
He
is
includes a
basically a consistency theorist.
final analysis,
by
a
dissatisfaction.
number of significant hypotheses
about attitudes,
beliefs,
and values, but
be significant, lasting change. The reason for
this is that such contradictions increase self-
in the
he believes that people are guided
need for consistency and that inconsistency
Even in discussing
consistency Rokeach has broadened his base far
beyond the other consistency theories. Taking
creates a pressure to change.
regard
Since maintenance of the self-
aim of the psychological
the overall
is
system,
it
is
natural that this should be so.
Rokeach’s theory of the attitude-belief-value
system is complex and lengthy. We have only
been able to sketch it here.
Rokeach’s theory
is
somewhat more com-
plex than dissonance theory and
its
precursors,
the total system into consideration, he sees consistency as extremely complex. An individual
ple,
may be inconsistent on several different
grounds. In all, ten areas in the psychological
individuals can be actively involved in defining
system interrelate and bear the potential for inconsistency. Table 8.4, reproduced from
Rokeach’s book, is a matrix of all the possible
relations
among elements
epistemology
extreme. For examRokeach believes that people use values as
criteria for making judgments, implying that
its
situations.
less
is
However,
methods
his
empirical and scientific.
He
calls for
are firmly
operational
of values, analysis that distinguishes
values from other cognitive elements, and ob-
definition
the belief-
in
and
attitude-value system. 34 In the cells of the matrix are indications of the areas of study that
jective research to find the true structure
have focused on various of these relationships.
One of the significant impressions we get from
this matrix is the number of empty cells that
have not been examined in any significant way,
according to Rokeach. He criticizes consistency
the
values in individuals.
Criticism. Consistency theory has had a major
impact on our thinking about attitude and at-
titude change.
theories discussed can be regarded as a
comprehensive theory of change.
A
of
also hypothesizes that
epitomizes the hypothetico-deductive method.
theory:
None of the
He
same few values operate in all people.
Methodologically, then, Rokeach’s work
for
comprehensive
many
period
it
A
years,
parsimony and
theory should ideally be able to address itself to the
conditions that will lead to long-range as well as
short-range change, behavioral change as well as
cognitive change, personality change as well as cog-
mainstay of social psychology
it
is
appealing because of
heuristic value.
its
For a twenty-year
stimulated a great deal of research.
popularity of consistency theory
is
The
understand-
cal
given the goal of this field to discover a
few important variables that would predict social behavior. Consistency theories do just that.
They isolate certain elements of cognition and
such issues, one that
show how manipulations among
able,
and behavioral change, and a rising or lowering of self-conceptions as well as their maintenance.
A major objective of this book is to build a theoreti-
nitive
framework that will, it is hoped, address itself to
at least attempts to bridge the
current gap between various personality, socialpsychological, and behavior theories that for the
most
part
do not speak
to each other 35
.
sense of logic, providing an explanation for behavior that makes intuitive sense. At one time
Furthermore, Rokeach believes that the most
important inconsistencies in a person’s psychological
system are those in row
cognitions about the
these variables
can predict a person’s feelings, thoughts, or
actions. They also appeal to the social scientist’s
self.
A
consistency theories were so well accepted that
debates centered not on whether people re-
involving
spond
Only when incon-
to dissonance but
on ways
to
the precision of predictions based
sistencies involve the self-conception will there
improve
on these
theories.
34. Ibid., pp. 220-21.
35.
In recent years, however, consistency theory
Ibid., p. 224.
has
155
become
less popular.
Several weaknesses
THEMATIC THEORIES
Press,
Free
The
by
1
S
*
1973
ECO
c so-g
o
H
>Copyright©
system
o
E a o
C -O c
o c —
"
c £
O ~
belief
z
-£
J
2
Rokeach.
U
total
I!
3 o
oo 8 E
£ PC M
the
Milton
"S.
by
Values
within
I
-a
° S
a1.2 -o
•2
§
8.4
Human
possible
of
II
TABLE
Nature
c
^
U
CQ
O o
relations
The
u
from
Inc.
contradictory
Co.,
pa
of
Publishing
Inc.
Matrix
Co.,
Macmillan
behavior
of
3
3 2
O <u
O
-Q
-Q J3
*3
c/i
o
2
c £
c
0
'2
U
2
O
<D
t/i
3
C
C/5
3
r
23
%
>-
-2
H
>
C/i
<U
S
V)
o
i-H
>
permission
<d
Macmillan
s
P
'2
Publishing
objects
about
C/)
-3 -3 T3
O
c
o
^ 3 o
3
£
1>
a
sc r
.
o
5 n
X u
u
w
»-
•2
(TJ
<Si
QJ
t/i
>
3 >3 <u
SP 3 3
° .£P"«
nonsocial
with
Cognitions
of
•
2r
^
of
Reprinted
Division
CQ
u
O
156
J.
.
THEORIES OF PERSUASION
have become apparent. These weaknesses revolve around three criteria: appropriateness, va-
dissonance; if attitude change does not occur,
one can say that dissonance did not exist. Fur-
and scope. The following comments
about these failures center on dissonance
Basically,
thermore, dissonance is such a general concept
that it can take any number of forms. Thus the
experimenter can claim that a particular result
was caused by one kind of dissonance but that
an entirely different result was produced by
the dissonance hypothesis for change is overly
simple. Chapanis and Chapanis capture this ob-
another kind of dissonance. This circular reasoning results from the fact that dissonance re-
lidity,
theory.
The
objection to dissonance theory re-
first
lates to its theoretical appropriateness
jection in harsh terms:
“To condense most
complex
social situations into two, and only
two, simple dissonant statements represents so
great an abstraction that the model no longer
bears any reasonable resemblance to reality.” 36
More
searchers
some question
rectly observable at
The
on cognition and information processing (see Chapter 7) provides evidence that cognition is too complex to break
theory
down
row
cies.
recent research
to simple consistencies and inconsistenFor example, cognitive complexity theory
posits that cognitions are organized in extensive
do not measure dissonance per se but
from behavior. Indeed, there is
as to whether dissonance is di-
infer dissonance
all.
third objection to dissonance theory re-
Originally thought to apply to
a wide range of cognitive activity, dissonance
lates to its scope.
is now seen as applying to a rather nararea of behavior.
Rokeach’s work has taken a giant step to-
hierarchies and that the individual’s understand-
ward improving consistency theory. It overcomes virtually all of the weaknesses of the
ing of environment
earlier
Another
ateness
is
variable and adaptive.
issue related to theoretical appropri-
the question
is
of whether people are
models. First, it is broadly based, including a variety of cognitive concepts. It explains
why cognitions do not always change and why
passive in responding to inconsistencies. Most
research evidence of recent years indicates that
some
they are not. Cognitions do not
theory
come prepack-
more apt to change than
The major contribution of Rokeach’s
cognitions are
others.
is
that
it
broadens our understanding of
aged in consistent or inconsistent forms. Individuals actively define and redefine situations,
consistency and inconsistency. Rokeach shows
that what may appear consistent on one level
depending on the needs of the moment.
The second basis for criticism of dissonance
Table
theory
validity.
is
The
may
— and the theory of cognitive
precisely
— to be
predictive theory
dissonance
such a
is
way
that
is
its
stated in
unrealistic at best
the
and ludicrous
at
worst.
Still,
power of this theory should not be underesThe time may be right to modify
timated.
Rokeach’s approach so that
wherein the dissonance theorist wins
it is
consistent with
recent action-oriented, rules-based notions of
no matter how an experiment comes out. If
attitude change results from the manipulations,
one can argue that the change was caused by
36. Natalia P.
his
all values to a standard list and to describe
the value system in terms of a simple ranking is
The
problem with dissonance theory is that it can be
used to explain various, contradictory results
and cannot be proved wrong, which creates a
situation
is
duce
predictions. In
falsifiable.
8.3).
attempt to operationalize constructs that are not
amenable to measurement. His attempt to re-
that contradictory evidence could
prove the theory wrong in
other words, the theory must be
be entirely inconsistent on another (see
The major problem of Rokeach’s work
basic standard for any
human
behavior.
What Do We Know about Persuasion?
Chapanis and Alphonse Chapanis, “Cogni-
tive Dissonance: Five Years Later,” Psychological Bulletin 61
A
(1964): p. 21.
sion. Until
157
revolution has occurred in the field of persua-
about 1970 persuasion research was
THEMATIC THEORIES
deterministic in orientation,
assuming that
theories of persuasion involve the
first
of these
people were passive responders to environ-
factors, tension reduction.
mental pressures. The attitude and attitude
change research tradition used a linear model
that assumed that messages together with certain situational and predispositional factors in
and/or values are changed to bring about
the receiver caused change.
Now
persuasion
is
quence of environmental change, hut it now
seems fo he an ar tive DrOCe ^ invnlving infor-
is
mation processing Social judgment is an important part of much communication. People and
their stated beliefs, along with information
from others, are judged by the receiver in terms
of position (degree of positive or negative valence), value, and similarity to one’s own position. This process of judgment is an important
aspect of the information processing that goes
.
volves change.
Most of the theory
that persuasion
is
in this section
makes
clear
largely related to information
processing. In fact the essence of persuasion
less
One major source of tension referred
by these theories is inconsistency or dissonance. In the past learning through interaction
with others was thought to be a passive conse to
judged inadequate to explain how people deal with messages. It is viewed as overly simple and not
explanatory. New approaches, which emphasize active involvement and information processing, have more potential for uncovering
useful conceptions of how communication inOld-line attitude research
attitudes, beliefs,
tension.
being viewed from an actional, teleological position.
Here
into personal change. Finally, interpersonal trust
is an important factor in how an individual
judges information from another. Our attitudes
is
on the intrapersonal
system. People change by reorganizing their
cognitions in the face of messages from others.
the impact of information
toward people are closely related to our attitudes toward things and situations. The importance of credibility appears in various ways
throughout theories of persuasion.
Several factors enter the persuasion process.
These include tension reduction, learning, social judgment, and interpersonal trust. Many
158
:
PART
IV
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Chapter 9
Interpersonal Contexts I:
Theories of Relationship, Presentation, and
Perception
Chapter 10
Interpersonal Contexts II
Theories of Disclosure, Attraction, and
Conflict
Chapter 11
Interpersonal Contexts III:
Theories of Groups and Organizations
Chapter 12
Mediated Contexts:
Theories of Mass Communication
CHAPTER
Interpersonal Contexts I:
Theories of Relationship,
9
Presentation,
filtered
Introduction
At
this
Part
and
I
you learned about
let
us recap briefly. In
the nature of theory,
to
the first set of actual theories was
These were general theories of
communication related to systems, symbolic
interaction, and rules. Part III presented
theories that deal with basic communication
themes: language and nonverbal coding, meaning, information, and persuasion. In Part IV we
will look at prominent theories that focus on
contexts of communication. Here two kinds of
II
presented.
context are included, interpersonal and mass. In
essence these are
through channels for mass consump-
For the most part we can say that dyadic,
group, and organizational communication tend
tion.
point in the book,
in Part
and Perception
two end
points
on
a
spectrum
of contexts.
be interpersonal and that mass communicais mediated. However, this generalization
tion
Some dyadic communication is
mediated, as in using the telephone. Organiza-
has exceptions.
tional communication often uses media (for
example, employee newsletters), and mass
communication sometimes occurs through
word of mouth, which is primarily interpersonal. Grouping the contexts in this way does
not imply mutual exclusion; it merely notes the
primary emphasis of the contexts.
This chapter discusses theories of relational
communication. These theories apply especially
to the dyadic context, but they provide insights
Contexts of Communication
for
The
of the book deal with
basic processes common to most communica-
well. In
Communication always occurs in context,
and the nature of communication depends in
measure on this context. In Chapter 1 four
theories apply especially well to the dyadic con-
main contexts were described: dyadic communication, group communication, organizational
communication, and mass communication.
These contexts form a hierarchy in which each
higher level includes the lower levels but adds
something individual of its own. For example,
mass communication is distinctive as a context,
but it includes many of the features of dyadic,
group, and organizational communication as
to
theories in this part
group and organizational communication as
Chapter 10 theories of disclosure, atand conflict are presented. These
traction,
tion.
although they relate to other contexts too.
Chapter 11 presents theories that relate directly
text,
large
groups and organizations, and Chapter 12
covers theories of mass communication.
What
Is Interpersonal Communication?
Dean Barnlund offers the following definition:
“The study of interpersonal communication,
then,
is
concerned with the investigation of rel-
atively informal social situations in
which per-
sons in face-to-face encounters sustain focused
well.
interaction through the reciprocal exchange
For purposes of discussion these contexts are
two broad groups: interpersonal
and mediated. Interpersonal contexts primarily
verbal and nonverbal cues.” 1 This definition in-
divided into
cludes five criteria. First, there
more people
include direct face-to-face communication;
1
mediated contexts involve messages that are
.
proximity
who
per-
Dean Barnlund, Interpersonal Communication: Survey and
Houghton Mifflin, 1968), p. 10.
Studies (Boston:
161
in physical
of
must be two or
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
ceive the presence of one another.
work, therefore,
interpersonal
individual
Second,
communication involves communicative interdependence. In other words,
one’s communicative behavior
is
sequence of the other’s. Barnlund
ity focused
interaction,
a direct
con-
calls this
qual-
is that the experience of the
affected in a major way by the
communication with others. Stated
differently: “For in intraperson communication
we find those unique characteristics of the
human animal that distinguish us from other
which implies concen-
Our position will be that these
unique characteristics manifest themselves atthe intrapersonal level, but are developed
and sustained through interpersonal communi-
mutual attention. Third, interpersonal
communication involves the exchange of messages; fourth, these messages are coded in a
variety of verbal and nonverbal ways. The final
criterion is that interpersonal communication is
relatively unstructured; it is marked by informality and flexibility. This definition is a good
general guide, but you will quickly see that not
all theories of interpersonal communication
conform to these criteria.
animal forms.
trated
The next
cation.” 3
The authors name
five attributes that charac-
communication: “(1) symproduced by one individual,
(3) according to a code, (4) with anticipated
consumption by other(s), (5) according to the
same code.” 4 These attributes constitute a
definition of communication that guides the
theory as a whole. We will discuss the followterize interpersonal
bolic content (2)
section presents a theory that ex-
plains the functions
is
individual’s
of interpersonal communi-
cation. This theory provides a setting for the
remainder of the chapter and for the next two.
It helps us understand the role of interpersonal
is
ing functions outlined in this theory: linking,
mentation, and regulation.
communication in dyadic, group, and organizational contexts of human life.
The Linking Function. The first function of
communication is to provide a link between the
person and the environment. In other words,
the individual develops cultural, social, and
psychological ties to the world outside the self.
Functions of Interpersonal Communication
The functional theory of Frank Dance and Carl
Larson is a general theory that sets the stage for
many
of the theories that follow. 2 At first
2.
As
children develop, they begin to distinguish
between the
glance this theory presents an irony: It deals
with interpersonal communication, but it focuses on the person alone. This apparent para-
other conception arises largely out of interac-
dox
the sense of self-conception.
is
no inconsistency once you understand
They wish to answer the
the authors’ intent.
question of what happens
when
self-
to a child
Although we un-
through communication that the two are linked or related.
Individuals
learn
communicate egocentrically
(to
themselves) and nonegocentrically (to others).
Moving back and
between egocentric and
nonegocentric communication helps us organize concepts of the self, the other, and the
self-other relationship. An important part of the
self-concept is our perception of other peoples’
judgments of us. Most communication involves some self-disclosure, and one’s disclo-
implies a dependency between one thing and
Dance and Larson isolate some imporof communication within the in-
tant functions
An
who communicate
from the outer world, we
strong relationship that occurs naturally between two or more elements. The relationship
dividual.
and other objects. This
derstand the intrapersonal world as separate
an individual
communicates or, to be consistent with the title
of the theory: How does communication function in the life of the individual? A function is a
another.
self
tion with others,
important assumption of their
Frank E. X. Dance and Carl E. Larson, The Functions of
York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1976).
Human Communication (New
162
forth
3.
Ibid., pp.
31-32.
4.
Ibid., pp.
32-37, 162.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
AND PERCEPTION
sures to others always risk being judged. As we
communicate with others, we often shift our
orientations from the content of what is being
tering.
said to the others’ rejections and/or acceptances
creases the probability that
of that content and, hence, of the self.
Through communication, then, we relate
the self to the environment. We do this largely
to adapt to or to fit comfortably into the social/
cultural surroundings. We accomplish this goal
through assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is primarily a process of changing
one’s perception or evaluation of aspects of the
environment to fit one’s perception or evaluation of the self. For example, the theory pre-
achieve understanding. Decentering allows one
ment. The authors refer to
Dance and Larson
this process as decen-
state that decentering in-
communicators
will
mental image of what one believes is
the perspective of the other person. This mental
to create a
image
is
the facilitating factor of empathy.
The Regulatory Function. Interpersonal communication also serves to regulate. Regulation
occurs on three levels: one’s behavior is regulated
by others, one regulates one’s own beand one regulates the behavior of
havior,
dicts that an individual will reevaluate another
others. In childhood these functions occur de-
person
velopmentally in sequence. Significant figures
in a child’s life use language to regulate the
if that
other person has rejected a valued
aspect of one’s
Accommodation
self.
involves
changing aspects of the self to fit one’s evaluations of others. For example, one may reevaluate the self in the face of rejection when the
rejection is consistent with other responses frequently encountered.
The
child’s behavior.
child, in turn, uses the
communicated norms and limitations to reguSoon the child begins to use communication to affect others. In ongoing life all
late the self.
three forms of regulation occur concurrently,
and they
The Mentation Function. Broadly speaking, we
can say that humans engage in two kinds of
interrelate to support
Self-regulation
is
one another.
especially important.
Our
essary responses to environmental properties.”
symbols egocentrically enables us
to direct our own behavior. We respond to our
own question, What am I going to do next?
This question is a natural part of our need to
Much
reduce uncertainty.
activity.
Some
behavior
is
animalistic in the
sense of being “unmediated, uncontrolled, nec-
of our behavior, however,
is
of a
differ-
ability to use
ent class, including “conceptual thinking, in-
course of action
volving memory, planning, and foresight; and
evaluative judgment .” 5 These higher activities
Routines that
involves conscious intent
actor.
Most important
on
at this
generalization that mentation
the part
juncture
made
for a regulation principle, listening to others,
following others, or staging. Staging involves
playing a role that is consistent with what
of the
is
It arises when the proper
not defined from the outside.
choose in response to this
self-direction are ignoring, delaying, searching
are called mentation. The key to distinguishing
mentation from lower forms of behavior is that
it
is
we may
the
others want, despite one’s
own
desires.
Dance
possible
and Larson theorize that the individual uses
of speech. We think because we communicate.
Language and meaning enable the individual
these self-regulating routines to influence others
by the
is
internalization
to possess imagination. In other
can live a mental
and now.
We
can
life
Ibid., pp.
We
relates most cencommunication, as they
However, it has strong connections with other domains as well. First, it is
themselves state
is
other than the place and activities of the
5,
Dance and Larson’s theory
trally to interpersonal
not tied to the here
on the past and we can
can imagine locations
that
reflect
plan for the future.
as well.
words people
a
mo-
6
.
general theory dealing with the symbolic na-
ture of communication.
165-66.
6.
163
Ibid., p. 48.
The theory could
easily
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
be labeled symbolic interactions. As such
would fit well into
model (Chapter 4).
that section
It
it
of our domain
also has applicability to
toward
language, meaning, information processing,
and persuasion. Of these topics the theory, with
concepts of mentation and regulation, relates
its
most strongly
Chapter
a
to
meaning
as
conceived in
tion.
Speech communication, once primarily
emerged
field interested in
as a
munication.
major force
speech
skills,
in the study
a
has
of com-
Several theories in this chapter
have been developed by individuals associated
with this field, for interpersonal communica-
become one of its major interests.
of the work of speech communication
of Dance and Larson, tends to
tion has
Much
elaborate conceptualization.
Its
Dance and Larson choose
individual,
explaining
to focus
on
the
how communication
functions in the psychological
life
of the person.
They
leave another side of the coin largely
untouched social and cultural functions. That
communication could be shown to affect
both social structure and cultural values. A
whole realm of theory could be developed in
—
6.
This interpersonal communication theory is
product of the field of speech communica-
pedagogical
more
a
limitations relate to scope, theoretical appropriateness, and validity.
scholars, like that
be integrative, bridging gaps
among
traditional
disciplines. 7
is,
this area,
A
expanding
original scope.
its
second weakness
propriateness.
relates to theoretical ap-
Dance and Larson
take a rela-
tively actional stance,
emphasizing the proacof human life. Yet many of their
hypotheses are in the form of predictive covering laws, implying little choice on the part of
tive nature
the individual.
This inconsistency
is
trou-
blesome.
Another weakness
Redetermined by the
correspondence between a theory’s claims and
actual observations. Many of this theory’s
hypotheses are supported by research. Many,
is
related to validity.
call that validity is partially
Dance and Larson’s treatise is a welcome addition to communication theory beCriticism.
cause it directs our attention to aspects that
heretofore have been downplayed. Most
theories of interpersonal communication are
emphasizing what happens in communication. This theory redirects the focus to
the consequences of communication. In a fresh
way it aims to accomplish what symbolic instructural,
however, are speculative, as the authors admit.
This criticism is tempered by the fact that no
theory can claim perfect validity;
ulation
is
a vital part
initial
spec-
of the theory-building
process.
teractions theories sought years ago, namely,
ways communication
most important facets of human life.
to define the
An
important strength of
parsimony.
By
relating
its
this
Relational
affects the
The
theory
is
small set of functions, this theory presents a
and, inversely, communication patterns between people are shaped largely by the nature of
their relationships. Theories of relational communication go back many years. We will cover
a brief history of this work in three sections,
emphasizing origins of relational theory, extensions, and recent developments.
Theories of relational communication dem-
and simple framework in which the interof variables can be understood.
The weaknesses of this theory arise from its
newness. Admittedly, the theory is a first step
relationship
For
a
is
and
maintained by interpersonal communication,
theoretical claims to a
clear
7.
Communication
essence of interpersonal communication
relationship. Relationships are established
its
sampling of theoretical work in speech communi-
Frank E. X. Dance, ed., Human Communication
Theory: Comparative Essays (New York: Harper
Row
cation, see
&
1982).
onstrate clearly
164
how
the tenets of system
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
theory, symbolic interactionism, and rules
theory can be applied to a particular aspect of
our communication experience. Relational
theories are firmly planted in the dyadic context,
although one can easily extend their imgroup and organization as
dominant behavior of one parfrom the
is met by dominance, or submissiveness by submissiveness.
relationships the
ticipant elicits submissive behavior
other. In
We
plications into the
well.
Although no one,
done so
to
my
knowledge, has
explicitly, relational research findings
symmetry, dominance
will return to these thoughts
momentarily.
Although Bateson’s ideas originated
in an-
thropological research, they were quickly
picked up
psychiatry and applied to
pathological relationships. Bateson himself
teamed with colleagues in psychiatry to develop
in
could be made relevant to information processing and persuasion as well. Indeed, defining the
relationship is an interpersonal information-
relational theory further 10 Perhaps Bateson’s
processing task, and relational control is related to regulation and therefore pertinent to
double bind theory of schizophrenia
persuasion.
in this regard
ing to this theory, schizophrenia
Origins of Relational
Theory
Anthropologist Gregory Bateson is founder of
the line of theory that has come to be known as
communication 8 Bateson’s work led
development of two foundational propositions on which relational theories still rest.
relational
.
most famous contribution
.
is
11
is
the
Accord-
.
caused by
social factors, most notable of which is the
double bind. Significant persons in the schizophrenic’s life send contradictory messages, in
which the command and report functions are
no-win trap,
inconsistent. This situation sets a
to the
such that the individual loses no matter what
course of action is taken. For example, a parent
The
may state on the report level that he or she
wishes to comfort a hurt child, but nonverbally,
first is the proposition of the dual nature of
messages. Every interpersonal exchange bears
two messages, a “report” message and a
‘command” message. The report message contains the substance or content of the communication, while the
on the command
command
message makes a
statement about the relationship 9 These two
elements have come to be known as the content
message and the relationship message, or communication and metacommunication, respec-
mental
tively.
We
was
rev-
it suggested that
not be caused as much by
by interpersonal
Bateson would have preferred to keep his
work more general, but psychiatry, wanting to
apply it to mental health, provided monetary
support 12 Psychiatry and clinical psychology
sections.
.
is
by
that
com-
their nature are interested in
tion.
plementarity or symmetry. In complementary
8.
may
social factors.
will explore these concepts in greater
upcoming
Bateson’s second seminal proposition
relationships can be characterized by
illness
internal personality factors as
.
detail in
level, the parent tells the child
to stay away. This double bind notion
olutionary in psychiatry, for
rely
fers
Bateson began to formulate his ideas on relationship in
of the Iatmul tribe of New Guinea in
Naven (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
his field observations
Not only do
communica-
therapeutic procedures often
on communication, but communication ofa fruitful area of possible etiology in mental
health.
Several other theories in this chapter
the 1930s. See
1958).
See, for example,
Ruesch and Bateson, Communication.
1 1
Gregory Bateson, Donald Jackson, J. Haley, and
J.
Weaklund, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia,” Be10.
9. This proposition was first presented in the classic
theory of communication by Juergen Ruesch and Gregory
Bateson, Communication: The Social Matrix of Society (New
York: Norton, 1951). For space reasons a detailed summary
.
havioral Science
1
(1956): 251-64.
Gregory Bateson, “A Formal Approach to Explicit,
and Embodied Ideas and to Their Forms of Interaction,” in Double-Bind ed. C. E. Sluzki and D. C.
12.
of this theory
is not presented here. See the first edition of
Theories of Human Communication (Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill, 1978), pp. 43-47.
Implicit,
,
Ransom (New York: Grune&
165
Stratton, 1976), p.
xii.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
also stem from psychiatry and clinical psychology because of their interest in communication.
or vice versa.
zation
may
A
status relationship in an organi-
be observed in
The
verbal behavior.
Extensions:
The Palo
Alto
Group
may
pause
at
subordinate’s non-
a
subordinate, for example,
the supervisor’s door to await an
In the 1950s
and 1960s Bateson led an active
group of researchers and clinicians in a program
invitation to enter.
to further develop
friendship, hateship, business relationship, love
and apply ideas on relational
communication. These scholars became known
as the Palo Alto Group. Although their interests
were primarily clinical, their work has had
enormous impact on the study of interpersonal
communication in general. About 1960 psychiatrist Paul Watzlawick joined the group and
quickly became one of its leaders.
This group’s work received wide publicity
and popularity through the publication of
Pragmatics of Human Communication. 13 Although
this book does not express a complete picture of
the Palo Alto Group, it is the most comprehensive single work of the group and has been
treated as
its
basic statement of theory.
form
unique whole.) Part and parcel of a system is
the notion of relationship, and in defining ina
teraction, the authors stress this idea: “Interactional
systems then,
shall
be two
or
affair,
First, “one cannot not communicate.” 16 This
axiom has been quoted again and again in textbooks on communication. Its point is important, for the axiom emphasizes that the very
attempt to avoid interaction
interaction.
It
able behavior
is
a kind of
any perceiv-
is itself
also emphasizes that
potentially communicative.
Second, the authors postulate that “every
communication has a content and a relationship
aspect such that the latter classifies the former
is
therefore metacommunication.” 17
two people
are talking, each
is
“commenting” on
When
relating informa-
tion to the other, but simultaneously each
is
also
the information at a higher
This simultaneous relationship-talk
(which often is nonverbal) is what is meant by
metacommunication. For example, on the content
level.
level a teacher
may tell you that a test will be
Many possible metamessages
given tomorrow.
the content level.
The
instruc-
may> be making any of the following im-
tor
pressions:
Relationships emerge from the interaction
between people. People set up for themselves
interaction rules, which govern their communicative behaviors. By obeying the rules, behav-
teach,
I
you
have
a
am
the authority in this classroom;
I
What I have lectured about is
need feedback on your progress; I
need to judge you; I want you to think I
important;
learn;
I
am fulfilling my role as professor; and so on.
This axiom further substantiates the theorists’
idea that interaction is a constant process of
ing appropriately, the participants sanction the
defined relationship. In a marriage, for exam-
dominance-submission relationship may
emerge and be reinforced by implicit rules. The
husband may send messages of command,
which are followed by compliance by the wife,
ple, a
defining relationships.
The third axiom of communication deals
with the punctuation of communication se15.
These axioms are summarized in Joseph DeVito, The
Communication Book (New York: Harper &
Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Don Jackson,
A Study of Interactional
and Paradoxes (New York: Norton, 1967).
Interpersonal
16.
Watzlawick
Ibid., pp. 120-21.
17.
Ibid., p. 54.
Pragmatics of Human Communication:
Row,
Patterns, Pathologies,
14.
family, or whatever.
may accompany
more commu-
nicants in the process of, or at the level
of, defining
the nature of their relationship ," 14
13.
Such implicit rules are nuany ongoing relationship, be it a
in
In Pragmatics of Communication Watzlawick,
Beavin, andjackson present five basic axioms. 15
and
book Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin,
and Don Jackson present a well-known analysis
of communication based on system principles.
(A system was defined in Chapter 3 as a set of
In the
objects that interrelate with one another to
merous
166
1976).
et al., Pragmatics, p. 51.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
quences. Interaction sequences, like word sequences, cannot be understood as a string of
isolated elements.
To make
must be
punctuated or grouped syntactically. In raw
form an interaction consists of a move by one
individual followed by moves from others. The
objective observer would see a series of behaviors. Like the series of sounds in a sentence,
sense, they
Either
resembles the significate (for example,
it
photo) or
is intrinsic to the thing being sigSecond, an analogue is often continuous
rather than discrete; it has degrees of intensity
or longevity. Most nonverbal signs are ana-
nified.
logic.
For example,
prise not only
but
is
these behaviors are not simply a chain. Certain
behaviors are responses to others. Behaviors are
sion
thus grouped or punctuated into larger units,
variable
which
in the whole help to define the relationOf course, any given string of behaviors
might be punctuated in various ways. One
source of difficulty between communicators
facial distortion.
when they punctuate differently. For
example, consider a marriage involving nagging by the husband and withdrawing by the
wife. This sequence can be punctuated in two
ways. On the one hand, the wife’s withdrawing
cation. For
meaning
ship.
is
expression of surof a feeling or condition
of the surprise itself. Its
a facial
a sign
is
actually part
is
intrinsic. Further, the facial
not an either-or sign.
It is
a
expres-
continuous
between no expression and extreme
While the digital and analogic codes are diffrom one another, they are used together
and cannot be separated in ongoing communiferent
occurs
example,
a
word
(digital)
uttered in a variety of paralinguistic
can be
ways
(loud,
low; and so forth). The manner of
utterance is analogic. Likewise, a written messoft; high,
sage consisting of letters and words (digital) is
presented on paper using various layouts, styles
of handwriting or print, and other analogic
may be a response to the husband’s nagging:
nag/withdraw, nag/withdraw. On the other
hand, the opposite may be occurring: withdraw/nag, withdraw/nag. In the first case the
punctuation of nag/ withdraw implies an at-
codes.
Within the stream of behaviors in interacboth digital and analogic coding blend
tion,
But the husband’s
punctuation of withdraw/nag implies ignor-
together. Watzlawick and the others believe that
ing/imploring.
signs,
tack/retreat relationship.
Fourth,
“human
two serve different functions. Digital
having relatively precise meanings,
communicate the content dimension; while the
analogic code, which is rich in feeling and
these
beings communicate both
digitally and analogically .” 18 The authors describe two types of coding used in interpersonal
communication. Each has two distinguishing
characteristics. Digital coding is relatively arbitrary. In
other words a digital sign
represent a referent that bears
don
to the sign.
The
sign and the referent
no
strictly
is
the vehicle for the relationship
(metacommunication) level. To
axiom to the content-relationship
used to
second axiom,
we
relate this
idea of the
can say that while people are
communicating
intrinsic real-
relationship
is
is
meaning,
between the
digitally on the content level,
commenting about their relationship
on the metalevel. For example,
they are
imputed. Sec-
analogically
ond, the digital signs are discrete; they are “on”
or “off,” uttered or not uttered. The most
suppose a father at a playground sees his daughter fall and scrape her knee. Immediately, he
common digital
says,
cry.
tent
is clear.
code in human communication
is language. Sounds, words, and phrases, arranged syntactically, communicate meanings.
The
ital
analogic
signs.
It
18.
code
also has
teristics. First,
is
quite different
two
from dig-
her.
distinguishing charac-
an analogic sign
is
“Don’t
meaning
Daddy is coming.” The conThe child receives a mesis going to come to
large number of relationship
sage stating that her father
Imagine the
messages that might be sent analogically with
body and
not arbitrary.
Ibid., p. 67.
his
167
own
voice.
fear,
The
father
might communicate
worry, anger, boredom, or domi-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
nance. At the
a
same time he might communicate
number of
possible perceptions of his little
including “careless person,” “attention
girl,
getter,” “injured child,” “provoker,” and so on.
Truly this axiom captures the complexity of
even the simplest interpersonal exchange. 19
The final axiom of communication expresses
between symmetrical and complementary interaction. When two communicators in
a
relationship behave similarly, the relationship is
a difference
said to be symmetrical; differences are mini-
mized.
When communicator
maximized, however,
a
differences are
complementary
rela-
tionship is said to exist. In a marriage when two
partners both vie for power, they are involved
symmetrical relationship. Likewise, coworkers are communicating symmetrically
when each abdicates responsibility for taking
in
a
control of the job.
relationship
in
ways
would
A
complementary marital
exist
when
the wife behaves
that reinforce her submission,
and the
husband responds dominantly. In the work setting a complementary relationship would exist
when one’s feelings of superiority shape the
way one responds to another’s expressed low
self-esteem. Ideally, an
ongoing relationship includes an optimal blend of complementary and
symmetrical interactions. Flexibility
is
communication
since the early 1970s. In 1976
they presented a viewpoint in order to “stimudialogue about how to conceive of interper-
late
sonal relationships. Although the theory was
presented as “suggestive rather than definitive,”
remains one of the most cogent and heuristically valuable recent statements about relational
communication. 20 The theory makes a major
step toward codifying heretofore abstract
it
concepts.
Millar and Rogers begin with the assumpcomplex. They use a
symbolic interactionist and systems base in astion that relationships are
suming
human
behavior.” 21
They
is
largely
also follow earlier
relational theorists in advocating that
nication
is
commu-
a reciprocal negotiating process
of
defining the relationship.
Millar and Rogers’s model begins with a
definition of the three dimensions of relationship; control, trust,
and intimacy. Control
is
the
distribution of power to direct the character of
interaction or to define the nature of the relationship. In other words, control is a question
of
the key.
that “since a person’s ‘reality’
of his or her own making, choice and
change ... are two crucial themes that must be
emphasized in any communication theory of
a function
who
holds definitional rights.
The second
dimension
19.
Recent Developments
The ideas of the Palo Alto Group in recent years
have been removed from a strictly clinical application, and much research has been done on
the relational elements of
Two
normal interaction.
relatively formalized statements are sum-
marized below.
is trust, the responsible acceptance
of
the control dimension. Trusting involves ad-
mission of dependence, and trustworthiness is
acceptance of the obligation not to exploit control in a
dependency
tachment
in the sense
own
Millar and Rogers.
Frank Millar and
Rogers have been actively researching
Coding
is
a
complex concept.
Two
L.
Edna
relational
ed.
Gerhard Hanneman and William
20.
glewood
now
we will cover this
look briefly at the
Frank E. Millar and L. Edna Rogers, “A Relational
Approach
McEwan
at-
behavior.
variable last. Let us
(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975),
pp. 98-118; and
Randall Harrison, “Code Systems,” in Beyond Words
(En-
is
Since control has received most attention by
researchers of relational communication, in-
cluding Millar and Rogers,
additional sources
that reflect the complexity of coding distinctions
are
Michael Nolan, “The Relationship between Verbal and
Non-verbal Communication,” in Communication and Behavior,
situation. Intimacy
of using the other person
It is reliance on the other
person’s view of one’s own ego to limit one’s
for self-confirmation.
to Interpersonal
tions in Interpersonal
Communication,”
in Explora-
Communication, ed. Gerald Miller (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976), pp. 87-103; quotations from
p. 90.
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), chap. 4.
21. Ibid., p. 88.
168
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
two dimensions. Trust can be correlated
with three other variables. The first is the vulother
nerability pattern. Vulnerability
involves placing
AND PERCEPTION
of embarrassment or shyness, as she did when
they were first married. This example illustrates
Mary’s lack of trust in Bob. In their relationship
oneself in a situation wherein one may get hurt
by the choices of the other. As a pattern vul-
she was highly vulnerable and therefore greatly
dependent. Because of their difference in vul-
nerability varies in terms
nerability,
of the frequency
that
one places oneself in a vulnerable position. Millar and Rogers speculate that lower levels of the
mark
suspicion and dis-
high frequencies
in the vulnerability
vulnerability pattern
trust, that
scale
mean
and
risk taking,
that
middle-range
positions reflect trust.
The second
correlate
reward depenor the degree to which one person depends on another in a relationship. The wider
is
the difference in vulnerability patterns
in a relationship,
between
the greater the
reward dependency of the more vulnerable
party. High dependency by one person, relative
may
to the other,
lead to exploitation
by the
As reward dependability between persons becomes more equal, the relationship becomes more interdependent and
trusted person.
trust increases.
The
third related variable
is
the confidence
pattern, the relative
degree of confidence in the
other person’s trustworthiness. In a unilateral
relationship
one party
is
far
more confident
than the other. In a cooperative relationship
confidence and trust are mutual.
Consider the example of Mary and Bob.
Mary, her parents had just died
and she was lonely. A shy person, Mary had
few friends to confide in. She was swept off her
When Bob met
feet
by Bob’s
married.
attention,
Bob was
a
Bob
into the habit
fell
power over Mary,
trust. Later
that she did not trust
of exploiting
further reducing her
when Mary admitted
in
counseling
Bob, he couldn’t under-
He responded that he trusted her, and she
should trust him. Bob failed to understand that
stand.
the vulnerability pattern in their relationsip
of trust
dability,
two people
his
in
little
the vulnerable party, with his hav-
to risk. Consequently, their confidence
was such that Bob was more confident
than Mary and was unaware that her ego was
pattern
risked in her trusting him.
The next dimension of
timacy.
Two
a relationship is in-
variables are relevant.
ferable-nontransferable
continuum
The
refers
degree to which the relationship
is
trans-
to
the
unique.
In a nontransferable relationship the partners
almost always receive self-confirmation only
from each other. This kind of relationship is
highly intimate. In a transferable relationship
one finds several other people with whom
confirmation can be achieved. Such a relationship is not unique or intimate. In the example of
Bob and Mary, the relationship for Bob was
transferable; he had many other people who
could as easily have met his needs as did Mary.
Mary, however, had no one else to meet her
needs in the
relationship
and soon they were
young entrepreneur
made Mary
ing
way
that
Bob
did.
For her the
was nontransferable.
The second
of intimacy is degree of
attachment, or the amount of interdependence in
terms of mutual self-confirmation achieved in
an
import-export business and had many associates and a large circle of acquaintances. His
high level of sociability gave Mary a false sense
of social stimulation, but she remained shy and
was not at ease around other people. Bob made
fun of Mary to his friends, and she often became the brunt of their social jokes. She went
variable
the relationship.
The
greater the attachment,
Bob and Mary’s
mutual attachment was presBob received much ego confirmation out-
the greater the intimacy. In
relationship
ent.
little
side the relationship, while
on Bob
along with their joking, but inside she felt one
down. After a while Mary balked at going out
with Bob. Rarely would she admit her feelings
The
Mary
relied entirely
for her self-confirmation.
dimension of relationships, control,
seems to be the pivotal dimension. Certainly it
last
has received the most research attention. Millar
169
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
and Rogers have elaborated this dimension. 22
Control is characterized by two variables. The
first is
the rigid-flexible continuum.
flexible the relationship, the
es
more
The more
control pass-
back and forth between the two
1
The more
tern
.
parties.
Stability-instability relates to the predictability
the control shifts.
Consider the following brief exchanges between Mary and Bob as examples of the nine
types of transactions.
of
consistent the pat-
of control over time, the more stable the
Mary and Bob have a rigid
Competitive symmetry (one-up/one-up)
know I want you to keep the house picked
up during the day.
Mary: I want you to help sometimes!
Bob: You
Complementarity (one-down/one-up)
control. Obviously,
2.
but stable control pattern.
Let us take a closer look
Mary: With your
of this.
Bob: Yeah.
at how control
operates in a relationship. Following from the
work of early
relationship theorists, Millar and
Rogers define control in terms of complementarity and symmetry. Control cannot be defined
by examining a single message. Rather, one
must look
pattern of messages and re-
at the
sponses over time. Every message is a stimulus
for the next message in the sequence. In other
words when A makes a statement, B’s response
defines the nature of the relationship at that
moment.
If
control, B’s
B
responds in
message
responds in a
way
is
a
way
that asserts
said to be one-up. If
that accepts A’s assertion
B
of
B’s message is one-down. If B’s response neither asserts control nor relinquishes
control,
it,
the message
one-across.
is
A
complementary
exchange occurs when one partner asserts a
one-up message and the other responds onedown. In a complementary relationship this
kind of transaction predominates. A symmetrical exchange involves both partners presenting one-up or one-down messages, and a
symmetrical relationship is marked by a pre-
ponderance of such exchanges.
transition, exists
when
A
and Rogers have
Millar and Rogers,
“A
Bob: Let’s get out of town
work
can get out
if
you
are.
this thing out.
this
weekend, so we can
Okay?
Mary: Okay.
5.
Submissive symmetry (one-down/one-down)
Bob: I’m so tired. What are we ever going
Mary: Bob, don’t back out. I need you.
6.
to do?
Transition (one-across/one-down)
Bob: What household chores do you think
I
should do?
Mary: Whatever you want
7.
to do.
Transition (one-up/one-across)
Bob:
I
definitely think
we
should not have any more
kids.
Mary: Why?
9.
Transition (one-do wn/one-across)
I
m
I
Why
sorry I don’t want to go out very often.
do about it?
don’t you like to go out?
Neutralized symmetry (one-across/one-across)
Mary:
I
think
you should
stay
home more
often, but
really okay if you need to go out.
Bob: Well, I do like to go out, but I should stay
more, I guess.
it’s
on the work of
Parks.
associates as a basis for this conceptualization. See P. M.
Ericson and L. E. Rogers, “New Procedures for Analyzing
Relational Communication,” Family Process 12 (1973):
245-67; L. E. Rogers and R. V. Farace, “Analysis of Relational Communication in Dyads: New Measurement
Procedures,” Human Communication Research 1 (1975): 222-39.
23.
know we
Complementarity (one-up/one-down)
Bob:
the partners’ responses
relied in part
4.
What can
but not opposite. Table 9.1 illustrates nine control states generated by combinations of these
types of control messages. 23
I
Transition (one-across/one-up)
Mary:
third state,
Bob,
Mary: I’m willing to compromise
Bob: No, I won’t give in.
8.
are different (for example, one-up/one-across)
22. Millar
3.
help,
tarity
home
The foregoing concepts of complemenand symmetry are useful for understand-
ing the configuration of relational patterns.
Malcolm Parks has presented a set of axioms
and theorems, based on research findings and
These rely heavily on Mil-
Relational Approach,” p. 97.
clinical observations.
170
)
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
lar and Rogers’s taxonomy in Table 9.1 and can
be viewed as an extension of this theory. At the
8.
9.
greater the external threat, the less the
quent
10.
greater the role discrepancy, the less fre-
communication about
is
The
feelings
1 1
.
The
greater the complementarity, the greater the
role specialization.
12.
The
The
greater the complementarity, the greater the
greater the competitive symmetry, the
greater the frequency of unilateral action in a rela-
mutual envy.
tionship.
13.
2. The greater the competitive symmetry, the
lower the probability of relationship termination.
quency of disconfirming messages.
3.
The
14.
The
5.
The
greater the competitive symmetry,
greater the frequency of open conflict.
greater the competitive
The
greater the competitive
7.
The
the greater the fre-
greater the rigidity, the greater the proba-
of psychopathology.
Theorems (derived from the above axioms)
symmetry, the
mes-
1
.
The
greater the role discrepancy, the greater the
frequency of unilateral action in the relationship.
2.
The
3.
The
greater the role discrepancy, the lower the
probability of relational termination.
symmetry, the
greater the frequency of messages of rejection.
competitive symmetry, the greater the
with communication.
less
satisfaction
greater the rigidity,
The
15. The greater the rigidity, the less frequent are
attempts to explicitly define the relationship.
the
greater the frequency of threat and intimidation
sages.
6.
The
bility
greater the role discrepancy, the greater the
competitive symmetry.
4.
toward the
greater the complementarity, the less
empathy.
without comment: 24
Axioms
1.
greater the role discrepancy, the greater the
frequency of open
4.
The
5.
The
conflict.
greater the role discrepancy, the greater the
frequency of threat and intimidation messages.
See Malcolm Parks, “Relational Communication:
Theory and Research,” Human Communication Research 3
(1977): 372-81.
24.
greater the role discrepancy, the greater the
frequency of messages of rejection.
TABLE
9.1
Control configurations
CONTROL
DIRECTION OF
SPEAKER B’S
MESSAGE
One-up
(T)
CONTROL DIRECTION OF SPEAKER A’S MESSAGE
ONE-UP
1.
(T)
(IT)
Competitive
ONE-DOWN
4-
(|)
(Ti)
Complementarity
ONE-ACROSS
7.
(T—
Transition
symmetry
One-down
(i)
2-
(it)
Complementarity
5.
(U)
Submissive
8-
(1—
Transition
symmetry
One-across
(-)
com-
symmetry.
The
other.
both Bateson and Watzlawick. Since the axioms
and theorems are self-explanatory, they are
listed
The
petitive
same time Parks’s axioms are based on propositions from earlier theorists as well, including
3.
(—»T)
Transition
(-1)
Transition
6-
9.
(—
.)
Neutralized
symmetry
171
(->)
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
6.
The
greater the role discrepancy, the less satisfac-
tion with
communication.
The
greater the external threat, the greater the
frequency of mutual or joint action in a relationship.
7.
8. The greater the external threat, the higher the
probability of relationship termination.
9. The greater the external threat, the lower the
frequency of open conflict within the relationship.
10. The greater the external threat, the lower the
frequency of threat and intimidation messages within
the relationship.
11. The greater the external threat, the lower the
frequency of messages of rejection within the rela-
tionship.
12.
The
greater the external threat, the greater the
satisfaction
with communication within the relation-
ship.
simony. Supporters have defended the work
using the same categories. The two groups
little on substance. Rather, an evaluation
of these theories depends on one’s epistemological biases and research values.
Supporters of the work on relational communication praise it in all categories. In scope
clash
they see it as providing a needed focus on one
important aspect of interpersonal communication, the full coverage of the nature of relationships 27 It validly broadens scope from focus on
individual to focus
intrusive
this
Theories of relational communication tend to
be actional in ontology 25 As Millar and Rogers
on
interaction. Supporters
also see it as appropriately humanistic, following Bateson’s admonition against experimental,
methods
work had not
28
Although
.
stimulated
until recently
much
research,
it
has been heuristic in stimulating clinical application and observation 29 Its external validity is
.
.
state,
their transactional
approach to theory
dynamic, emergent, holistic approach to the study of social behavior. It re“emphasizes
a
quires social scientists to look for multiple
causes and multiplicative effects, rather than
unidimensional and additive cause-effect sequences .” 26 For the most part the work of the
Palo Alto Group relies on clinical interpretation
of relationships as experienced by the partners
in the relationship. Later research, however,
uses objective observation and measurement in
search of generalizations.
however, researchers such
supported by the clinical applications,
which supporters view as successful 30 Finally,
also
.
the theory can be
the grounds that
relational
viewed
as
outcomes
are explained
elements of relationship
by only
a
few
31
.
Although the critics usually are sympathetic
to what relational theorists have begun, they see
serious problems in the overall work 32 Most of
.
the criticism can be boiled
objections.
The
first
is
down
to
two main
conceptual confusion.
Typically, critics point out
For the most part,
as Parks develop
parsimonious on
many normal and abnormal
two
difficulties in
this regard. The first conceptual problem is the
premise, implied by Watzlawick, Beavin, and
general axiomatic propositions that leave wide
latitude for individual choice in relational
first axiom, that all behavior is comThe objection is that by placing no
on what is communicative, the concept
becomes meaningless. Carol Wilder discusses
Jackson’s
municative.
communication.
limits
Criticism
Critics
of
dressed,
ateness,
relational
communication have adeach of the
directly or indirectly,
criteria in
our
critical
model: scope, appropri-
heuristic value,
validity,
and par-
For an excellent discussion of the epistemology of relacommunication, see Carol Wilder, “The Palo Alto
Group: Difficulties and Directions of the Interactional View
f°r
Human Communication Research,” Human
Interactional
30.
See Paul Watzlawick, John Weaklund, and Richard
Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem
(New York: Norton, 1974).
Fish,
Resolution
Communica-
31. Watzlawick, Beavin,
171-86.
and Rogers, “A Relational Approach,”
Gregory Bateson, “Slippery Theories,”
See Paul Watzlawick and John Weaklund, eds.. The
International View: Studies at the Mental Research Institute,
Palo Alto, 1965-1974 (New York: Norton, 1977).
tional
26. Millar
Ibid.
28.
29.
25.
tion Research 5 (1979):
27.
Journal of Psychiatry 2 (1966): 415-17.
32.
p. 90.
The
in detail
172
and Jackson, Pragmatics.
criticism of relational communication
by Wilder, “Palo Alto Group.”
is
discussed
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
this
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
problem with Paul Watzlawick
in
an
ship.
interview:
WILDER: The first axiom in
not communicate”
has a fine aesthetic ring to it and
brings to mind some of the tacit dimensions of
communication, but some have argued that it expands the boundaries of what constitutes communication beyond any useful or meaningful grounds.
—
WATZLAWICK:
boils
down
of communication?”
If
you
are in-
exchange of information on what we
conscious or voluntary, deliberate level
terested in the
call a
answer is “yes.” But, I would say, if
you take our viewpoint and say that all behavior in
the presence of another person is communication, I
should think you have to extend it to the point of the
then, indeed, the
axiom
logic, analogic
matters worse, metacommunica-
and
digital,
nonverbal, and both
verbal and nonverbal.
The accusation that theories of relational
communication are conceptually confused
strikes primarily at the internal validity or
sistency
of these
theories.
33
The second main objection to relational
communication theories is that the concepts are
and therefore are not
amenable to verification through research. This
difficult to operationalize
objection indirectly questions the appropriateness of the epistemological assumptions of the
theories, their heuristic value,
The
.
tion
who
is
in control.
sometimes
the Palo Alto
of
lar,
is
way as
to
possible. The work of MilRogers, Parks, and their associates, sum-
marized earlier, exemplifies
While many believe this effort
this
is
approach.
a step in the
right direction. Parks points out that the con-
ceptual distinctions of one-up,
one-across are
still
one-down, and
rudimentary and need elab-
oration 36
36.
by
Theories of Self-Presentation
Most relational theories of communication recognize that people engage in two basic kinds of
activities in encounters with others: They attempt to understand others, and they present
their relation-
—
This problem
epistemological, not sub-
make measurement
28 (1978): 41-42.
34.
is
who are not members of
Group have attempted to oper-
ationalize relational concepts in such a
Carol Wilder, “From the Interactional View
A Conversation with Paul Watzlawick,” Journal of Communication
33.
is
stantive. Researchers
Or, metacommunica-
refers to explicit discussion
issue here
subjects. This issue
Group, at different
points in their writing, imply as many as three
different meanings for metacommunication.
(The use of various other labels, such as command message and relational message, is also
confusing.) At points metacommunication refers to a verbal or nonverbal classification of the
content message, in which one’s partner guides
the coding of the content. At other times
metacommunication refers to nonverbal statements about the relationship itself, such as indithat the Palo Alto
individuals about the nature
their external
whether relational concepts
are best tested through the clinical case study
method or by objective observation of multiple
munication 34 One critical treatment calls the
concept “muddled and confusing .” 35 The probis
and
validity.
Another area of conceptual confusion critics
is the distinction between the
report and command functions, or metacom-
cating
it
.
often mention
lem
con-
At the same time
questions parsimony, noting that the so-called
few core concepts are really many.
Yes, this has been said. And it usually
to the question: “Is intentionality an es-
sential ingredient
would
To make
tion has been treated alternately as strictly anaPragmatics — “One cannot
well discussed by William Wilmot,
“Meta-communication: A Re-examination and Extension,”
in Communication Yearbook 4, ed. Dan Nimmo (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1980), pp. 61-69.
themselves to others. This is the two-sided coin
of perception-presentation. In this section we
will look at theories in the latter group. In the
Arthur Bochner and Dorothy Krueger, “Interpersonal
Communication Theory and Research: An Overview of
Inscrutable Epistemologies and Muddled Concepts,” in
Communication Yearbook 3, ed. Dan Nimmo (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979), p. 203.
35.
next section
the coin.
we
will
Parks, “Relational
173
examine the other
The following
side
of
theories present in-
Communication.”
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
teresting contrasting approaches to selfpresentation in interpersonal communication.
is
the degree of love needed.
relates to others will
manner of meeting
Schutz’s Psychological
Approach
How
a
person
that individual’s
Schutz’s analysis of interpersonal needs
In the last section we talked about theories that
describe the nature of interpersonal relation-
These theories imply the importance of
human life. Another theory that
need for communication is that of William Schutz: fundamental
ships.
relationships in
more
depend on
these needs.
clearly explains the
is
list of variables in Table 9.2. 39
or the need to have satisfactory
reflected in his
Inclusion,
relations with others, is represented on a continuum between the two extremes of high interaction and no interaction. Acts of inclusion
range from always originating or eliciting
interpersonal relations orientation theory
(FIRO). 37 Schutz writes that the human being
interaction to never doing so. Feelings of inclu-
has needs for social relationships with other
people. Like biological needs social needs must
ing interest from others.
be
feeling that
avoid
satisfied to
illness
and death. Schutz’s
theory consists of four postulates.
view each in turn.
The
first
postulate,
sonal needs,
is
We
which defines
will re-
interper-
the heart of the theory:
“Every
individual has three important interpersonal
needs: inclusion, control, and affection. ... In-
and affection constitute a
sufficient set of areas of interpersonal behavior
for the prediction and explanation of interpersonal phenomena.” 38 This listing of needs is
necessary and sufficient to understand interperclusion,
control,
Each need
is
conceived as
a variable
some people needing
a
being met, one will
feel
between
is
com-
of asis the person’s need
and have power over others. Affection
control
self-respect.
of control
See William Schutz, Firo: A Three-Dimensional Theory
of Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Rinehart, 1958); or The
Interpersonal Underworld (Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1966); Here Comes Everybody (New York:
Harper & Row, 1973); Elements of Encounter (New York:
ty,
is
with prom-
a variable
is
As Schutz puts it: “Thus the flavor
transmitted by behavior involving
accomplishment,
power, coercion, authoriintellectual
superiority,
high achievement, and independence,
as well as
dependency (for decision making), rebellion,
resistance, and submission. It differs from in-
Univer-
For a brief summary of the theory,
Lawrence Rosenfeld, “Conceptual Orientations,” in
Interaction in the Small Croup (Columbus: Charles E
sity Associates, 1977).
clusion behavior in that
prominence.
Human
Merrill, 1973), pp. 16-18, 47-48.
Schutz, Firo,
is
influence, leadership,
37.
38.
need
On the feeling dimension a healthy relationship
involves mutual respect for one’s competence
and responsibility. The self-concept growing
otit of the optimal fulfillment of this need is
to affect
see
the
understanding, interest, commitment, and participation. It is unlike affection in
that it does not involve strong emotional attachments to individual persons. It is unlike
sociation needed. Control
1975); Leaders of Schools (La Jolla, Calif.:
is
between strong
control and no control. Acts of control range
from controlling all of the behavior of others
(or being controlled by others) to controlling
no behavior (or not being controlled by others).
fortable. Inclusion relates to the degree
Bantam,
satisfactory self-
a
viduality,
The
high degree of
psychologically
A
worthwhile person. Schutz
describes inclusion: “It has to do with interacting with people, with attention, acknowledgement, being known, prominence, recognition,
prestige, status, and fame; with identity, indiis
inence, not dominance.” 40
three needs.
the quality, others needing less. If one’s need
one
control in that the preoccupation
sonal relations. In other words how one behaves toward others is determined by these
extremes,
sion include being interested in others and elicit-
concept emerging from optimal inclusion
p. 13.
174
.
.
.
it does not require
Control behavior differs from
39.
Schutz, Leaders, p. 29.
40.
Schutz, Firo, p. 22.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
affection behavior in that
power
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
has to do with
emotional close-
it
relations rather than
ance or equilibrium. This involves behaving in
such a way that one feels comfortable in terms
of inclusion, control, and affection.
ness .” 41
The
by
a
We have now examined the three needs in
terms of observability (acts and feelings) and
interpersonal affection need is expressed
spectrum between closeness and distance.
Acts of affection range from originating and
eliciting
no
much
love.
directionality (originating or receiving).
love to originating and eliciting
dividual’s behaviors
Satisfactory feelings of affection in-
the flavor of affection
situations
is
embodied
states are desired, ideal, anxious, and
pathological. Desired states are those that opti-
of love, emotional closeness, personal
intimacy. Negative affection is
mally meet the individual’s needs. Ideal states
are more than satisfactory; they are the health-
-
iest
characterized by hate, hostility, and emotional
rejection .” 42
needs
41
.
42.
possible relations. Anxious states involve too
much
or too
inclusion, control, or affec-
little
tion.
Pathological states involve dysfunctional
interpersonal relations and lead to various
psychotic, psychopathic, or neurotic condi-
of the person in meeting these three
to strike an optimal psychological bal-
task
is
tions.
Ibid., p. 23.
The
Ibid., p. 24.
TABLE
FIRO theory
make
1
inclusion
activities
theirs.
anxious, and pathological
FEELINGS
efforts to include people in
I
ideal,
9.2
variables
BEHAVIOR
Expressed
my
and to get them to include
me
Other people
in
try to belong, to join social groups,
and to be with people
as
much
are important to me. I have a
high regard for people as people, and I am very
much interested in them.
as possible.
Wanted
I
inclusion
activities
person.
if
and interesting.
want other people to include me in their
and to invite me to belong, even
I do not make an effort to be included.
Expressed
1
control
things.
Wanted
I want others to control and influence
me.
want other people to tell me what to do.
control
Expressed
affection
in-
These
in
confidences,
The
An
and feelings of inclusion,
one of four states.
control, and affection exist in
clude adequate levels of closeness with others.
The resultant self-concept says, I am lovable.
“Thus
AND PERCEPTION
I
try to exert control and influence over
I take charge of things. I tell other
people what to do.
I
I
I
make
efforts to
become
close to people.
want others to have a high regard for me as a
I want them to consider me important
want other people to feel that I am a
competent, influential person, and to respect
I
my
I
capabilities.
I
see other people as strong
I
trust
I
feel
I
want people
and rely on
and competent.
their abilities.
people are likeable or lovable.
express friendly and affectionate feelings.
try to be personal and intimate.
Wanted
I
affection
tionate feelings
want others
become
to express friendly
close to
toward
me.
me
and affecand to try to
affectionate.
175
to feel that
lovable person
who
is
I
very
am a likeable
warm and
or
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
categories yield various types for each need.
Within the anxious category are two subtypes:
overactive and underactive. In the inclusion category are four subtypes: undersocial, overso-
democrat
the ideal type,
is
trols or is
who
controlled,
pathological type
as
comfortably con-
The
appropriate.
the psychopath or the
is
obsessive-compulsive.
cial, social, and psychotic. The undersocial person tends to be introverted. He or she is neither
underpersonal, overpersonal, personal, and
interested in others,
neurotic.
him or
superficially to others, avoiding
her.
As
a
nor are others interested in
result of the inability to meet
the inclusion need, the undersocial person may
have anxieties of feeling worthless. Oversocial
on the other hand, are extroverted. By
erring in the opposite direction, they are attention getters. The ideal inclusion type is the sopersons,
cial.
This individual
is
comfortable being with
others as well as being alone and has managed
to achieve a balance in association with others.
In pathological form, failure to
meet the
sion need will lead to psychosis,
inclu-
particularly
schizophrenia.
Likewise there are four affection subtypes:
ing to
have confidence in their own abilities. On the
other extreme is the autocrat, who tends to dominate in social situations. Underlying this form
of behavior is a basic mistrust of others. The
TABLE
underpersonal individual relates
win
affection.
The
personal relates
com-
fortably in various ways, developing close relationships and giving genuine affection. Personal
individuals will maintain a satisfactory distance
appropriate.
as
The pathological form
Table 9.3
illustrates the various interpersonal
anxiety types.
cell
The following
of Table
is
a description
SELF
Anxieties about self-toward-others behavior
Too much:
Inclusion:
Control:
I
Affection:
Too
am with people too much.
am too dominating.
I
I
get too personal.
little:
Inclusion:
I
do not mix with people enough.
9.3
TOWARD OTHERS
FEELING
LEVEL
LEVEL
Too much
Inclusion
Control
Affection
Too
Inclusion
little
Control
Affection
176
of
9.3.
Types of interpersonal anxieties
BEHAVIOR
is
neurosis.
each
For the control category, the subtypes are
four: the abdicrat, the autocrat, the democrat,
and the psychopath. The abdicrat is submissive,
avoiding responsibility. Such individuals do not
The
emotional involvement. Such persons fear being unlovable.
The overpersonal tends to be manipulative, seek-
OTHERS TOWARD SELF
BEHAVIOR
FEELING
LEVEL
LEVEL
.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
Control:
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
am not decisive enough.
am too cool and aloof.
I
Affection:
tions, usually
Too much:
me
People do not leave
Inclusion:
alone
enough.
me
tion to
me
We
copy our
own
childhood be-
havior or our parents’ behavior.
atten-
me.
Control: People do not help
early parent-child interaction.
We may
tion.
little:
do not pay enough
is
tend to pattern behavior in a situation after behavior recalled from a similar childhood situa-
around too much.
me.
Affection: People get too personal with
Inclusion: People
with his parents .” 43 This postof interpersonal
ulate explains that the origin
behavior
Control: People boss
individual’s expressed interper-
sonal behavior will be similar to the behavior he
experienced in his earliest interpersonal rela-
I
Anxieties about others-toward-self behavior
Too
“An
follows:
AND PERCEPTION
enough.
Schutz’s third postulate, the postulate of
compatibility, states that compatibility is im-
portant in the efficient operation of a group 44
Compatibility is defined in terms of the inclu.
Affection: People
do not
act personal
enough
with me.
Anxieties about self-toward-others feelings
Too much:
Inclusion:
I
respect everyone’s individuality
group members. Compatibility increases both
the desire to communicate and cohesiveness,
which in turn increase productivity.
Schutz’s fourth postulate relates to group
too much.
Control:
I
respect everyone’s
formation. As a group develops, it passes
through a sequence of inclusion behavior, con-
competence too
much.
Affection:
Too
I
do not
like
trol,
people enough.
and affection.
If the
group anticipates
that the association will end,
little:
I do not respect people
enough.
Inclusion:
uals
control, and affection behaviors of the
sion,
Control:
the pattern
as individ-
do not trust people’s
I
through
do not
I
like
it
then reverses
passing again
control phase and ending with inclu-
sion. Thus a group’s history of predominant
behavior follows the pattern inclusion-con-
abilities
enough.
Affection:
a
before dissolving,
trol-affection-control-inclusion.
people enough.
The
focus of Schutz’s theory
He
is
interpersonal
Anxieties about others-toward-selffeelings
needs.
Too much:
tempt to fulfill various needs via relating to
others. His theory helps to explain why people
Inclusion: People feel I am too important.
Control: People respect my abilities too
relate to others in particular
much.
planation of
Affection: People like
Too
me
too much.
offered
how we
ways. Another exbehave interpersonally is
by Erving Goffman
in his theory
of
self-presentation
little:
Inclusion: People
nificant
sees interpersonal behavior as an at-
do not
feel that
I
am
sig-
Goffman’s Social Approach
One of the most prolific sociologists of our day
is Erving Goffman 45 As a symbolic interactionist of the dramaturgical tradition, Goffman
analyzes human behavior with a theatrical
enough.
Control: People do not respect
my
abilities
enough.
.
Affection: People
do not
like
me
enough.
Now that we have discussed the three needs
of Schutz’s first postulate, we will briefly summarize the other three postulates. The second is
the postulate
of
43. Ibid., p. 81.
44.
Ibid., p. 105.
45. See the bibliography for
relational continuity, stated as
Goffman’s works.
177
Chapter 9 for
a listing
of
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
metaphor. The ordinary interaction setting
is
a
stage. People are actors, structuring their performances to make impressions on audiences.
According to Goffman, interpersonal
commu-
nication
is a presentation through which various aspects of the self are projected. Goffman’s
analyses in his various books are highly detailed.
Presenting
all
of his concepts here would
we will look at his main
be impossible. Instead,
ideas and premises.
Goffman’s observations of nearly twenty
years are spread throughout his books, making
synthesis difficult. Fortunately,
vides
a theoretical
framework
general approach to
we
review
go back
a
human
beginning
set
Goffman pro-
that outlines his
behavior. 46 After
of premises,
we
will
to material specifically related to inter-
organized for the individual.
What the frame
framework) does is allow the person to
and understand otherwise meaningless
events; it gives meaning to the ongoing activities of life. A natural firamework is an unguided
event of nature, with which the individual must
is
(or
identify
A social framework, on the other hand, is
seen as controllable, guided by some intellicope.
Thus humans have a sense of control
when they enter the social frame. Of course,
these two types of frameworks interrelate, since
gence.
social beings act on and are in turn influenced
by the natural order. Goffman demonstrates the
importance of frameworks for culture: “Taken
all
together, the primary
ticular social
of
frameworks of a pargroup constitute a central element
culture, especially insofar as understand-
its
personal communication.
ings
Goffman begins his reasoning with the assumption that the person faced with a situation
must somehow make sense of or organize the
another, and the
events perceived.
What emerges
as
an organized
happening for the individual becomes that person’s reality of the moment. This premise states
that
what
is
real for a
person’s definition
ofi the
person emerges
situation.
elaboration of a key concept
in that
(This idea
is
the question,
What
is
going on here? The
ations
is consistent not only with the central
of symbolic interactionism but with sevof meaning presented in Chapter 6.
Primary framework is the basic unit of social
life.
Goffman points out
that
primary frames can be transformed or
in detail various
ways
al-
example,
is modeled after a fight, but its purpose is different. A large portion of our
frameworks are not primary at all, though they
are modeled after primary events. Examples
include games, drama, deceptions (both good
and bad), experiments, and other fabrications.
misunderstanding. The notion of a rereading is
important for Goffman because he has observed
that we are often deceived and deceive one another in our relations.
Several terms highlight Goffman’s general
any arbitrary sequence of
activity. A firame is a basic element of organization used in defining a situation. Frame analysis
thus consists of examining the ways experience
46.
of forces and agents
acknowledge to
be loose in the world.” 47 This view that a culture is defined in part by its definitions of situ-
tered so that similar organizational principles
are used to meet different ends. A game, for
the case of a practical joke, a mistake, or a
A
principal classes of
that these interpretive designs
from symbolic
person’s definition of the situation provides an
answer. Often the first definition is not adequate and a rereading may be necessary, as in
approach.
total
eral theories
A typical response of a person to a new situais
sum
ideas
an
interactionism as discussed in Chapter 4.
tion
emerge concerning
schemata, the relations of these classes to one
strip is
Indeed, what happens in ordinary interpersonal
communication often involves this kind of secondary activity, including dramatic presentations, fabrications,
With
base,
and deceptions.
approach as a
Goffman’s central ideas on
this general theoretical
we come
to
communication. Communication activities,
viewed in the context of
like all activities, are
Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Orga(Cambridge: Harvard University
nization of Experience
Press, 1974).
47.
178
Ibid., p. 27.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
I:
frame analysis. We will begin with the concept
of face engagement 48 A face engagement or en-
divides the self into a
when
people engage in focused
engagement
a particular
interaction. Persons in a face
engagement have a
and a perceived mutual
unfocused interaction people in public places acknowledge the presence of one another without paying attention to one another.
In such an unfocused situation the individual is
normally accessible for encounter with others.
Of
mutually sustained. Face enboth verbal and nonverbal, and
the cues exhibited are important in signifying
the nature of the relationship as well as a mutual
definition of the situation.
gagements
is
are
People in face engagements of talk take turns
presenting dramas to one another. Story
telling
recounting past events
is a matter of
impressing the listener by dramatic portrayal.
This idea of presenting dramas is central to
Goffman’s overall theory.
—
—
am
suggesting that often what talkers undertake to
not to provide information to a recipient but to
present dramas to an audience. Indeed, it seems that
I
do
is
versation.
The
parallel
engagement of
In
unfocused interaction scenes
.
zations.
Here
is
how
he explains the
self:
A correctly staged and performed scene leads the
audience to impute a self to a performed character,
but this imputation
this self
is a product of a scene
that comes off, and is not a cause of it. The self, then,
as a performed character, is not an organic thing that
has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to
be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect
—
—
from a scene that is presented, and
the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is
arising diffusely
whether
it
will be credited or discredited 51
.
In attempting to define a situation, the person
goes through
a two-part process. First, the person needs information about the other people in
expected of them. Usually,
this exchange occurs indirectly through observing the behavior
of others and structuring one’s own behavior to
between stage and
elicit
conversation is much, much deeper than that. The
point is that ordinarily when an individual says
something, he is not saying it as a bold statement of
fact on his own behalf. He is recounting. He is running through a strip of already determined events for
the
in
the situation. Second, one needs to give infor-
time not engaged in giving
information but in giving shows. And observe, this
theatricality is not based on mere displays of feelings
or faked exhibitions of spontaneity or anything else
by way of the huffing and puffing we might derogate
calling theatrical.
Even
are presented to others 50 Goffman believes that
the self is literally determined by these dramati-
mation about oneself. This process of exchanging information enables people to know what is
we spend most of our
by
involved in the characteriza-
is
course, the individual has opportunities
to present the self in situations other than con-
,
develops and
like
in ordinary
tion being presented.
begins, a mutual contract
engagement to some kind
of termination. During this time a relationship
Thus
we have the actor and the characor the animator and the animation; the lis-
ter,
tener willingly
exists to continue the
role.
conversation
single focus of attention
activity. In
Once an engagement
number of parts and
the stage actor presents this or that character in
,
counter occurs
AND PERCEPTION
his listeners 49
.
engaging others, the speaker presents a
The person
particular character to the audience.
impressions in others. Self-presentation is
a matter of impression management.
much
The person
very
tion
influences the definition
by projecting
may wish them
a particular
of a
situa-
impression:
“He
of him, or to
think that he thinks highly of them, or to perceive how in fact he feels toward them or to
obtain no clear-cut impression; he may wish to
insure sufficient
to think highly
harmony
so that the interaction
On the nature of face-to-face interaction, see Erving
Goffrnan, Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interac-
can be sustained, or to defraud, get rid of, confuse, mislead, antagonize, or insult them .” 52
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961); Behavior in Public
Places (New York: Free Press, 1963); Interaction Ritual: Es-
50.
48.
tion
says on
1967);
Face-to-Face Behavior (Garden City:
and Relations
in
Public
(New
The best sources on self-presentation are Erving
Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1959); and Relations in Public.
Doubleday,
York: Basic Books
1971).
49.
Goffman, Frame Analysis,
p. 508.
179
51.
Goffman,
52.
Ibid., p. 3.
Presentation, pp.
252-53.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Since
participants in a situation project
all
images, an overall definition of the situation
emerges. This general definition is normally
Once
rather unified.
pressure
is
the definition
created to maintain
it
is set,
moral
by suppressing
contradictions and doubts. A person may add
to the projections but never contradict
the
image
initially
society
is
set. The very organization of
based on this principle.
when
In consequence,
an individual projects a definition of the situation and thereby makes
an implicit or
explicit claim to be a person of a
particular kind, he
automatically exerts a moral demand upon the
others, obliging them to value and
treat him in the
manner that persons of this kind have the right to
He also implicitly foregoes all claims to be
things he does not appear to be and hence
foregoes
the treatment that would be appropriate
for such
individuals. The others find, then, that the
individual
has informed them as to what is and as to
what they
ought to see as the “is .” 53
expect.
If the presentation falters or
later scenes, the
and to the
is
contradicted by
consequence to the individual
can be severe.
social structure
Goffman
uses this basic stance in his many
analyses of public life. He shows how
self-
presentation occurs in verbal and nonverbal
beall public settings. For us
Goffman
havior in
demonstrates the relevance of self-presentation
to interpersonal
communication.
temology of Schutz, Goffman’s epistemology is
humanistic 54 His epistemological biases are
.
Frame Analysis,
which he expresses his belief that knowledge arises out
of
the interaction between the individual
and the
world outside the individual. Knowledge for
Goffman is not ‘invested” by the person nor is
it
presented
53.
Ibid., p. 13.
anew by
in
nature.
It is
a
St.
Martin’s Press, 1980); see especially the following
Randall Collins, “Erving Goffman and the
cles:
of reporting observations are interpretive
Criticism
Schutz
theory has two clear strengths.
s
First,
it
parsimonious, explaining a great deal of
interpersonal behavior in terms of a few variables. Second, it has been well validated,
though not universally, by several research
is
studies 55
.
As
a corollary
value the theory
is
rather heuristic.
Problems of the theory are in scope and appropriateness. Many communication scholars
would say that we can never adequately explain
behavior on the basis of internal needs,
although clearly these do have some explanasocial
tory power.
The theory can
ontological grounds for
room
its
also
be faulted on
failure to
provide
human
for
choice or change. Beyond
immediate compatibility, it does not give us a
way to understand how people adjust to one
another in ongoing interaction. In fairness,
however, we must note that no theory can be
and Schutz’s work provides a
understanding some aspects of a fairly
all-inclusive,
narrow range of behavior.
Goffman’s work presents contrasting
55.
strengths
man
s
and
theory
faults to Schutz’s theory.
is
broad
in scope,
Goffproviding in-
on numerous aspects of social life. His
descriptions and analyses are intuitively valid
sights
and appropriate to many scholars and a large
segment of the public who read his books.
s
work
has been faulted primarily
on two grounds. First, it has been viewed as
noncumulative, scattered, and unparsimonious.
In the extreme he is accused of being
atheoreti-
For excellent discussions of Goffman’s epistemology,
see Jason Ditton, ed., The View
from Goffman (New York-
54.
ment of Modem
his
style
Goffman
product
Still,
rather than scientific.
basis for
In stark contrast to the deterministic
epis-
best stated in
of both nature and social definition.
Goffman’s theory leaves wide latitude for
choice as well as assuming that cultural forces
play a major role. Goffman’s methods and
cal.
arti-
Consider the following indictment: “The
Develop-
Social Theory,” pp. 170-209; Steve
Crook
For a partial summary of research on this theory,
see
Marvin Shaw, Group Dynamics: The Psychology
of Small
Group Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1981), pp. 228-
and Laurie Taylor, “Goffman’s Version of
Reality,” pp.
233-51; Peter K. Manning, “Goffman’s
Framing OrderStyle as Structure,” pp. 252-84.
180
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
non-cumulative look of Goffman’s work is
puzzling, and some of the blame is due to his
continual shifts in concepts.
This confusion is exacerbated by his applying
more than one label to the same thing (for
example, person and self). To make matters
worse, Goffman’s predominant style is metaphorical and lacks precision.
This section has given us an unusually good
opportunity to see a diversity of communica-
Goffman never
re-uses earlier concepts in later works, manifest-
from his own previous work; and he very seldom refers to his
ing a kind of role-distancing
work in any respect. Thus one never gets
from Goffman himself any overview of his own
theory, and one is left to figure out for oneself if one is to expect any theoretical unity
or only a string of self-contained virtuoso perearlier
Here
vastly
different in epistemology,
scope, each with
,
presentation in
fails
we
have two theories that are
style, and
and weaknesses, but both providing insights into selftion theory.
formances .” 56
Although Goffman often
AND PERCEPTION
its
special strengths
human
interaction.
to take explicit
theoretical stands, a close
examination of his
work reveals that he has indeed integrated im-
Interpersonal Perception and Attribution
In the last section we noted that self-presentation and interpersonal perception are like a
portant sociological theories, as the same critic
points out: “We have seen that he has continually drawn upon powerful intellectual traditions
and upon wide-ranging empirical research both
of his own rather innovative procurement, and
of the best of his contemporaries. But Goffman
two-sided coin. In
a social situation
of others through perception. Much
work has been done in social psychology on
tations
hides his intellectual elitism behind a theory-
interpersonal perception, far
deprecating manner, producing a kind of un-
summarized
derground, hermetic theorizing beneath a
popularistic-seeming surface .” 57 Frame Analysis
does a great deal to integrate Goffman’s work
into a theoretical framework. For the first time
Goffman
discusses in an abstract
way
to this field:
and inner
perception is not very
qualities,
the nature
cial
term per-
perception, person perception, and inter-
Broadly, two areas of research have develin interpersonal perception. The first has
focused on the nature and accuracy of judgments made about other persons. The second
imputations of others, but at other
times he defines it as one’s own view of self.
trend has dealt with the process of interpersonal
perception. This latter area interests us in the
p. 175.
context of communication theory.
Much of the research work
perception is atheoretical.
For comments on Frame Analysis, see Crook and
Taylor, “Reality,” and Stephen Littlejohn, “Frame Analysis
58.
and Communication,” Communication Research 4
485-92.
For an elaboration of
“Framing Order.”
satisfactory, the
oped
self as the
59.
to
person
personal perception, to mention only a few of
the phrases used .” 60
.
Goffman,”
know and
60.
cepts 59 He tends to create a new set of terms for
each project and even uses some of these inconsistently. For example, he sometimes defines
Ibid., p. 205.
to
The phrase
being used in a loose way, most
often meaning apperception and cognition.
This topical area has been variously named so-
.
Collins, “Erving
states.
ception here
Goffman’s career 58
57.
man comes
think about other persons, their characteristics,
The second criticism of Goffman’s work is
ambiguity and inconsistency in using con-
56.
more than can be
Renato Tagiuri introduces us
“Person perception refers to the
here.
processes by which
and principles of social life apart from the substance of specific human actions. For this reason
Frame Analysis is a significant and pivotal work
in
people both
present the self to others and take in the presen-
this
criticism,
see
in interpersonal
An
impressive
(1977):
Renato Tagiuri, “Person Perception,” in The Handbook
of Social Psychology, vol. 3, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot
Aronson (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), p. 395.
Manning,
181
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
amount of research on perceptual problems has
been done but not a great deal of theorizing. 61
The major exception
is
a related field,
known
one’s perception (experience) of the relationship
with the other communicator.
to this general observation
which matured
Laing takes
Because of its individual contribution to our understanding of
interpersonal perception,
we
centrally to interpersonal
analysis
phenomenological approach to
The
basic
datum
for
the experience of the person, or reality
as experienced by a given individual. Laing
will concentrate
on attribution theory here.
Although attribution theories
a
the study of human beings:
in the 1970s,
as attribution theory.
is
makes
a distinction between experience and bewhich is the observable acof another, is public; experience* is private.
Experience is the feeling that accompanies be-
havior. Behavior,
relate
most
tions
communication, they
of
also apply to information processing because
havior or the perception of another’s behavior.
It consists of imagination, perception, and
their cognitive basis. Attribution theory in particular deals with lay epistemology, or the ways
memory. We can imagine
the future; we can
can recall the past.
that individuals process information in order to
perceive the present;
generate information about
Such experiences are internal in the individual
and not directly accessible to anyone else.
self,
others, and sit-
uations.
many
For
years attribution theory
went
against the grain of mainstream psychology
Behavior, on the other hand, can be ob-
by
served, but another’s experience cannot. Inferring experience from behavior is the heart of
suggesting that an individual’s construction of
reality is an important aspect of human behavior.
With
the shift in social psychology
communication, but doing
from
own
behavior, attribution theory has
not and never have and never will see your
experience of me.” 64 As implied in this quotation, experience is an intrapersonal matter,
become firmly planted in social psychology and
become one of the mainstays of the field.
has
Many
social psychologists believe that attribu-
tion processes
social
lie
at
the heart of
but one’s experience
most other
relations
phenomena. 62
wise, our experience
communication. Another theory that adds
depth to this analysis is R. D. Laing’s. Laing, a
British psychiatrist, has written a number of
books related to the process of perception in
communication 63 Laing’s thesis is that one’s
communicative behavior is largely shaped by
marked by
62.
havior.
,
ibid.
For an excellent compilation of work in attribution, see
Ickes, and Robert F. Kidd, eds.,
Directions in Attribution Research, vols. 1 and
2 (New
63.
Laing
s
Interpersonal
is
further affected
communication
by be-
is
often
a
message will become clearer as we review his
notion of interpersonal perception. 65 A person
interacting with another has two levels of expelications, 1969); and R. D. Laing, H. Phillipson, and
A. R.
Lee, Interpersonal Perception (New York: Springer, 1966).
New
&
by
perceives or
behave toward
behavior-experience spiral.
The foregoing paragraph states that behavior
is related to one’s experience of the
other and
one’s experience of the relationship. Laing’s
John K. Harvey, William J.
York: John Wiley
how one
and the experience of the relationship. Like-
Jackson provide an excellent general description
of the relationship dimension of interpersonal
supported in
also affected largely
How we
another person is a function of two related experiences, the experience of the other person
The axioms of Watzlawick, Beavin, and
is
is
with others and
experiences others.
Perception and Metaperception
61. This conclusion
this is difficult, as
Laing points out: “I see you, and you see me. I
experience you, and you experience me. I see
your behavior. You see my behavior. But I do
discovering the real causes of behavior to the
interpretation of how people perceive the causes
of their
we
Sons, 1976, 1978).
64. Laing, Politics of Experience
works most concerned with communication
65.
include The Politics of Experience (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1967); Self and Others (London: Tavistock Pub-
Laing
summary
et al.
,
182
,
p. 4.
Interpersonal Perception.
An
excellent brief
can be found in Rosenfeld, “Conceptual Orien-
tations,” pp. 31-36.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
rience (perception), or perspectives. The person
experiences the other individual in a direct
perspective.
One
loves her, he
also experiences the other’s ex-
stood
is
is understood. But being undernot the same as feeling understood. The
latter
is
defined as the conjunction between
perience. In this second or metaperspective the
Jack’s direct perspective and his
communicator imagines, or
spective. Ifjack infers that
other person
infers,
own metaperJill believes he loves
and he does, then he feels understood.
Since communicators attempt to behave in
what the
feeling, perceiving, or thinking.
is
her,
Laing describes the process: “I cannot avoid trying to understand your experience, because
ways
al-
that,
according to their metaperspectives,
though I do not experience your experience,
which is invisible to me (and nontastable, nontouchable, nonsmellable, and inaudible), yet I
experience you as experiencing. I do not experience your experience. But I experience you experiencing. I experience myself as experienced
by you. And I experience you as experiencing
yourself as experienced by me. And so on .” 66
will affect others, spirals can develop wherein
each person acts toward the other in such a way
To
him.
that particular metaperspectives (for example,
mistrust)
trist
tive).
He
also
of Jill
mistrusts
Jill’s
this
A relationship then is defined by the communicator’s direct perspectives and metaper-
Jill.
Jack thinks
Jill
of Jill becomes more and more accentuA bilateral spiral occurs when both parties
increasingly extreme metaperceptions. For example, Jack believes Jill wants too
much from him. He judges her as greedy. At
the same time Jill sees Jack as selfish. Both feel
the other is withholding what he or she needs.
Since both parties feel misunderstood, they retaliate, causing their metaperceptions of greed
and selfishness to increase. Such spirals need to
be broken before the system (dyad or person) is
ated.
move toward
one
often behaves in accordance with his or her
metaperspectives. If Jack thinks Jill thinks he
does not love her, he
may
imaged perception. The
try to
change
metaidentity
is
Jill’s
how
the
person believes others see one. (You may recall
from symbolic interactionism the importance
of another’s perceptions
in establishing the self.)
Of course, metaperspectives may or may not
be accurate, and the health of a relationship is
much determined by
destroyed.
Now
that we have discussed Laing’s basic
of experience, perception, and metaperwe can move to another part of his
theory, which also adds to our understanding of
interpersonal communication. In the second
half of Self and Others, Laing presents a helpful
analysis of the forms of interpersonal action 67
Some of these forms are growthful and positive; others are dysfunctional and therefore
perceptual accuracy.
ideas
Three concepts are pertinent at this point. Understanding is the agreement or conjunction between Jack’s metaperspective and Jill’s direct
ception,
perspective. Ifjack correctly infers that Jill loves
him, understanding
results.
Being understood
is
.
the inverse.
It is the conjunction of Jack’s
meta-metaperspective and Jill’s metaperspec-
tive.
66.
Ifjack correctly infers that Jill believesjack
Laing,
Politics
of Experience p.
,
attempt as covering up her lack of love.
he perceives Jill as a liar. The spiral will
trust
loves him. Jack thinks
thinks that he loves her, and so on.
Further, since experience affects behavior,
as a paranoid,
Now
Theoretically, metaperception can
proceed indefinitely through higher levels. Jack
Jill
For example, Jack,
Jill. He does not believe she loves
then accuses her of having affairs with
continue until the relationship is destroyed.
This example is of a unilateral spiral. Jack’s mis-
spectives.
that
accentuated. This idea of spi-
explains various pathological re-
Jill, in her metaperception of Jack’s
mistrust, attempts to prove her love. Jack sees
per-
ceptions (metaperspective).
loves
He
it
other men.
(direct perspec-
or imagines
infers
because
lationships.
use Laing’s favorite characters, Jack per-
ceives certain behaviors
become
has been important for Laing as a psychia-
ral
harmful.
67. Laing, Self and Others, part
5.
183
II.
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
The first form of action is complementarity
the aspect of a relationship that allows one to
fulfill one’s identity.
person’s identity cannot
,
A
be complete without complementary relations
with others. Motherhood is not possible without
a
You cannot be
child.
a
lover without
someone to love. One cannot be an oppressor
without the complementarity of submission.
Laing defines this aspect of interpersonal relations:
“One
lead to pathology.
Alto Group.
A
volves confirmation, or the affirmation of one’s
an interaction communicators be-
identity. In
in
ways and send messages
that
confirm
A simple smile may
host of verbal and nonverbal
reinforcers. If Jack loves Jill and Jill recognizes
the other’s self-perception.
do
it,
as
might
and accepts
On
a
confirmation takes place.
his love,
many
the other hand,
disconfirmation
boy of
,
as in the
interactions involve
following example:
“A
five runs to his
mother holding a
big fat worm in his hand, and says, ‘Mummy,
look what a big fat worm I have got.’ She says,
You are filthy away and clean yourself im”
mediately.’ 69 Since communication occurs on
multiple levels, one can confirm another on one
level and disconfirm simultaneously on yet anlittle
—
other level.
A
parent
may
console a hurt child
plement each other. Still, to disclose oneself to
is hard without confidence in oneself
the other
and
trust in the other. Desire for confirmation
This condition occurs
incongruently with needs
happens when a person does not
feel like oneself. A person can put oneself into
an untenable position, but one can also be put
there by another person in a relationship. Laing
uses everyday expressions to capture the essence of this kind of relation: “To put someone
is
similar to Bateson’s no-
positions.
Laing describes
it
on the spot; to give someone [no] room
move; to have no elbow room; to be put
an
awkward
small; to
pull
position; to
know where one
make someone
is
to
in
feel
with someone; to
someone or
to be pulled in opposite direcscrew on; to know where one
have the ground taken from under
one’s feet; to be boxed in, tied in a knot,
caught, sat upon, cornered, entangled, trapped,
smothered .” 71
tions; to turn the
stands; to
The
final class
of interpersonal actions
dis-
and self-injunctions. This class
of behavior is closely related to confirmation
and disconfirmation as well as to false positions.
self-attributions
more than one person.
as an unstated
It
behave. Attributions and injunctions are harmful when they contradict the individual’s own
of the double bind.
Another form of relationship is collusion.
Collusion is mutual self-deception, which
tion
necessarily involves
feelings.
is attributions and injunctions
Attributions are statements telling a person
how to be; injunctions tell a person how to
and kinesically communicating irritation and annoyance. Here
Laing’s conception
and
cussed by Laing
verbally, while tactilely
68.
confirmation.
when one behaves
second important form of relating in-
have
false
and untenable
failure to find appropriate
is
is
extremely frustrating and can
Laing’s concept of com-
gesture, action,
of the other .” 68 A
complementarity in a
feeling, need, role, or identity
is
of collusion
is how it happens: “Two people in relamay confirm each other or genuinely com-
consistent with that of the Palo
speaks of a gesture, an action, a
an identity, being the
feeling, a need, a role,
relationship
tion
from each is present in both, but each is caught
between trust and mistrust, confidence and despair, and both settle for counterfeit acts of
confirmation on the basis of pretence. To do so
both must play the game of collusion .” 70 Thus
Jack and Jill continue to date long after they
have fallen out of love. Neither wishes to hurt
the other. Both fake love, thus faking confirmation of the other’s “love.”
Another form of relationship involves false
complement of a corresponding
plementarity
definition
Here
game. Another
The previous example of two people
Ibid., p. 67.
70.
Ibid., p. 91.
69. Ibid., p. 85.
71.
Ibid., p. 118.
184
in a rela-
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
tion talking about their “love”
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION, AND PERCEPTION
an excellent
is
on the perceiver’s
and behavior. The communi-
tributed cause has impact
illustration
of the effect of attribution. (Be carenot to confuse Laing’s concept of attribution
with that of the attribution theorists sum-
own
ful
cator’s attributions
marized
and that of others. Scientific psychology
attempts to ascertain the actual causes of
behavior; naive psychology centers on the
perceived causes of behavior in ongoing inter-
Thus, attribution theory, while it relates directly to interpersonal communication, is supportive of several previous topics in this book,
including symbolic interaction, meaning, and
information processing. It also supplements
some of the previous theories of this chapter,
notably those of Laing and Goffman.
Fritz Heider could easily be called the father
of attribution theory. It was he who coined the
term naive psychology. Heider’s early work has
been extended by a number of later theorists.
In Chapter 8 you saw that Heider’s balance
action.
theory
meaning
next section.)
in the
Heider’s Attribution Theory
theory deals with the
Specifically, attribution
ways people
theory
ogy.
It
people
infer the causes
of behavior. This
known
alternatively
is
as naive
come
psychol-
by which most
explains the processes
to understand their
own
behavior
When
question,
puts
it
Why
this
interpret
wonder why
as they do. I may wonder how to
a compliment a student makes of a
lecture
I
recently gave,
critical
of
they act
why my
a certain
I
often
why my friend is
common acquaintance,
so
project.
These
cause
or
(can)
for
it,
— what causes
to
what
is
it,
what
is
changes in the environment, they are able to
and try to cause these changes, they have wishes
and sentiments, they stand in unit to other
and they are accountable accord-
entities (belonging),
ing to certain standards (ought). All these characteristics determine what role the other person plays
responsible
to be attributed?” 73
it
psychology. The
further elucidated and
(wants)
are questions
about the attribution of the other person’s
behavior
is
According to naive psychology people have an
awareness of their surroundings and the events in it
(the life space), they attain this awareness through
perception and other processes, they are affected by
their personal and impersonal environment, they
colleague has not done his share of
work on our joint
classic in social
theory:
is
tion with other people,
a
in
them answer the
he doing that? Harold Kelley
way: “In the course of my interac-
is
The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. 75
Heider summarizes the main points of his
doubt, they look
in
for information that will help
in large part the
placed in the larger context of naive psychology
people attempt to determine the
causes of behavior.
determine
for the situation.
notion of balance
Attribution theory has three basic assumptions. 72 First,
feelings
in
The
our
own
life
space and
how we
react to
him
76
.
second assumption of attribution theory is that
people assign causes systematically. Kelley lik-
Thus
ens this occurrence to the scientific method:
ceived in interpersonal communication. These
“The lay attributor
generally acts like a
good scientist, examining the covariation between a given effect and various possible
causes.” 74 The third assumption is that the at-
are the
.
72.
The
lined in
.
E. Jones et
al.,
major concepts of
his theory,
Heider presents the important attributes per-
.
commonly
perceived causes of behavior:
being affected by, causing, can, trying, want-
and may.
distinguishes between diand indirect perception. Indirect perception
occurs when one infers from overt behavior the
ing, sentiments, belonging, ought,
As Laing, Heider
rect
basic assumptions in attribution theory are out-
Edward
in the
Attribution: Perceiving the
Causes of Behavior (Morristown, N.J.: General Learning
Press, 1972), p. xi.
73.
Harold H. Kelley, “Attribution
in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes
in Social Interaction,”
N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972), p.
74.
Ibid., p. 2.
75.
Fritz Heider,
(New
of Behavior (Morristown,
76.
1.
185
The Psychology of
York: John Wiley
Ibid., p. 17.
&
Interpersonal Relations
Sons, 1958).
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
causes of that behavior. Such causal perception
mediated by psychological variables in the
There is not a one-to-one relationship between the observed behavior and the
is
perceiver.
A
cause.
as
variety of behaviors
stemming from
versely,
may
or,
be thought to
conarise
tion.
from multiple possible causes. One of the tasks
of the perceiver is to resolve such ambiguities
inherent in the situation. For example, a supervisor in a company may notice that one em-
ployee is particularly industrious. The supervisor must decide whether the employee’s drive
can be attributed to personal dedication or to a
desire to seek personal favors, since either
of
these elements could be the cause.
Of
course, every behavior
is
embedded in
a
and the naive psychologist makes the
most of the context in resolving ambiguities.
For one thing, we usually have the benefit of
situation,
exposure over time, as Heider points out: “It is
probably fair to say that the stimulus fields basic
for person perception are usually more extended
in
time
than those relevant to thing percep-
... In most cases we cognize a person’s
and especially his wishes, sentiments, or
intentions from what he does and says, and we
tion.
traits,
know
considerably
less
what we can see of him
The most important
biguity
is
when we
are limited to
as a static object .” 77
factor in resolving
meaning. The attributor’s meanings
for stimuli are crucial in interpersonal percep-
because of the use of language
and speech, although Heider makes it clear that
Basically,
meanings
as well.
such
a
way
sense.
meanings
makes
the total attribution
77.
lack
Although Heider does not use the same
minology as does Laing, he recognizes the
ter-
sig-
nificance of metaperception in
communication.
In interpersonal perception one individual perceives the perceptions of another. Bob recognizes that Mary is an active perceiver and that
her perceptions affect her. This recognition on
Bob’s part also affects him. He may attempt to
influence Mary’s perception in order to bring
about results that are favorable to him. In addition his expectations of Mary are affected by his
how she perceives the situation.
his own attributions of Mary are affected.
One of the most important attributions involves purposive action. When one perceives an
assessment of
Thus
action to be purposive,
(try).
two underlying
attri-
These causal agents are necessary and
sufficient conditions to explain purposeful be-
havior. Trying
means
intention and exertion.
Suppose, for example, that your friend fails to
for a meeting. According to this
show up
you
it
wonder why. Here are the
by the naive analysis of
your friend was not able to make
will
(couldn’t), or she didn’t try.
able,
If she
wasn’t
something would have been wrong with
her (for example,
either didn’t
process becomes integrated and consistent.
The
give
illness),
or
some environ-
mental factor (for example, snowstorm) prevented her appearance. If she did not try, she
that causal attribution
In short,
may
action. Either
make sense of the world. Heider would agree
with Goffman that the person sees situations in
terms of well-integrated frames. From a need
for consistency, the perceiver aligns
tion.)
possibilities as outlined
us
logical
of accurate or erroneous percepHeider recognizes that any state of affairs
rise to a number of interpretations,
each of which seems true to the perceiver.
priate to speak
theory,
are integrators in percep-
tion, organizing percepts into patterns that help
in
we are not dealing here with
or objective analysis, it is not appro-
(Because
scientific
butes are recognized: ability (can) and attempt
am-
tion, especially
we have meanings for nonlinguistic acts
reasonable to expect idiosyncratic patterns of
perception, which Heider calls perceptual styles.
This notion introduces another variable in perception, namely, individual manners of percep-
be perceived
single cause,
a
one behavior
may
tween behavior and motive makes multiple interpretations of a given event possible. Thus it
is
(exertion).
of one-to-one correspondence be-
want
Now
was too lazy
what happens in
you
to (intention) or
you can
see
interpersonal perception. In this instance
Ibid., p. 39.
will infer the causes
186
of your
friend’s behavior
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
according to your overall experience, your
meanings, the situational factors, as well as
your
is
own
objective order.
one
perceptual style.
the situation
balanced
is
This example of the naive analysis of action
valuable,
included to illustrate Heider’s conception of
gether, if p admires the person he likes
attribution
is
can and
try.
The same
is used in attributions dealing with desire
and pleasure, sentiments, ought and value, benefit and harm, and others. Two of these attribu-
etc.”
moment.
First, let
we
The
attribution,
is
Theory
is
two
that
theories of the
of Harold Kelley. 80
postulates about causal
which apply
to
both self-perception
and perception of others.
The first postulate is the covariation principle:
“An effect is attributed to one of its possible
causes with which, over time,
it
covaries.” 81
This principle applies to situations in which the
from more than one
observation. The person sees which effects are
associated (covary) with which causes. The second principle, which applies in the case of single
observations, is the discounting effect: “The role
perceiver has information
will return to in
of
particularly interest-
from the normal patterns
is seen by the person
as a demand from some suprapersonal source.
The perceiver views the ought as an impersonal, objective demand, a truism. Further, the
ought has interpersonal validity in that most
people would agree that the demand is present.
As Heider puts it, “One might say that ought
it
is,
most prominent
Kelley developed
us look at the attributions
ought attribution
the
process of attribution
of ought and value.
ing because
likes
if what
really
79
One of
area
and
whom he shares values,
Kelley’s Attribution
expanded further.
of sentiments is important because
it relates to Heider’s earlier work on balance
(see Chapter 8). Basically, the sentiments we
attribute to another person are consistent with
our sentiments toward the other person and
toward certain objects that we hold in common
with the other. In interpersonal relationships we
have a need to balance our various interrelated
sentiments. In fact, Heider believes that people
have a general tendency to balance the entire
tional areas will be
perceptual picture, a notion
happiness and goodness go to-
ought to be conforms with what
cess
The
if
the person with
basic pro-
if
do what one ought to do, if one
and enjoys the entities one believes are
likes to
likes
the perceptual process. In this case the realm of
a
Thus
AND PERCEPTION
a
given cause in producing
discounted
departs
a
given effect
is
if other plausible causes are also pre-
sent.” 82 In other
of attribution. The ought
words, the perceiver tends to
weigh possible causes in relation to one another.
These two postulates describe attribution as a
rational process in
which the individual
care-
examines the various causal possibilities
and generalizes on the basis of the best available
fully
data.
78.
rises out of a tendency to equalize the life spaces
of different persons as well as the different moments of the same life space.” 78 Thus a person
says, “You ought to go to the dentist,” or “I
ought to report the theft.”
But oughts do not necessarily correspond
with values. I may dread going to the dentist
even though I think I ought to. However,
people seek congruity among attributions;
especially they feel a need for balance between
oughts and values: “There exists a tendency to
be in harmony with the requirements of the
The
covariation principle applies
when
the
person has multiple observations from which to
generalize. The perceiver goes through a naive
version of analysis of variance. Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure often used in ex-
perimental research.
It
allows the researcher to
weigh the various sources of variation
79.
80.
Ibid.,
in
such
a
p.233.
See the bibliography for Chapter 9 for a
list
of Kelley’s
works.
81
.
Harold Kelley, “The Processes of Causal Attribution,”
American Psychologist 28 (1973): 108.
Ibid., p. 222.
82.
187
Ibid., p. 113.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
way
as to
determine the causes in operation.
same
Analogically, the perceiver uses the
basic
pattern, treating possible causes as independent
observed that most of your friends like music at
this time of the semester since music tends to
soothe anxieties. The attribution to time is illus-
variables and effects as dependent variables.
trated in Figure 9.2(c). All
Figure 9.1 illustrates a three-way contingency
model used in causal influence. 83 The three di-
primary dimensions
mensions
in this
model include the
several per-
sons observed, the various times in which observation took place, and some other objects
(entities) that enter the situation.
Suppose you learn
particular record.
your friend
likes a
Why? A number of
reasons
are possible. Perhaps
that
your friend generally
recorded music and enjoys
attribution
is
many
to the person,
Figure 9.2(a). If this record
and
is
is
likes
records. This
as illustrated in
especially
good
enjoyed by most people, the attribution
to the entity, as in Figure 9.2(b).
A
83.
is
effects.
In other
is
of these attributions
words one of the
three
inferred to be the cause.
Sometimes attribution is not so simple. In
the parlance of analysis of variance, you may
infer interaction effects. You might infer that the
primary causal agents combine in certain ways
to achieve effects. For example, you might have
observed that your friend likes only one record,
but that no one else likes that record. Thus you
have attributed interaction between entity (record) and person (your friend), as illustrated in
Figure 9.2(d). You are reasoning that peculiar
aspects of the record interact with particular
is
third possi-
something about the time is causing your friend’s enjoyment of the music.
Perhaps this is final exam week, and you have
bility
are main
that
qualities in
trated in Figure 9.2(e),
is
liking.
interaction,
A
illus-
what you might
call
attribution to circumstances. In this attribution
you
Ibid., p. 110.
your friend to produce
more complex three-way
believe that your friend
particular record at this time.
enjoy
it
at
enjoys
it
at this
is
enjoying
Your
this
friend didn’t
any other time, and no one
Persons
else
or another time.
In all of these cases the perceiver observes the
covariation (association) of particular causes
and
effects in different situations
over time.
By
putting these various observations together, the
observer sees patterns emerge, and the causal
Much of the
we do not make multiple obdo not have the advantage of a
inferences outlined above occur.
time, however,
servations.
We
complete data block such as that shown in Figure 9.1. Ergo, we use the discounting principle.
The discounting
effect applies
when
the per-
must rely on a single observation. The
various possible causes of an observed effect are
ceiver
weighed against one another, and an inferred
The process itself is
from the analysis of variance
causal structure emerges.
no
From American
“The Process of Causal
by Harold Kelley. Copyright
1973 by the
American Psychological Association. Reprinted by
permission of the publisher and the author.
Attribution,”
different
paradigm above. What
Psychologist,
the data block
©
is
is
Figure 9.1. Analysis of variance model of attribution.
different
is
filled in.
model most of the data
(that
assumed, not observed.
is
is,
way
causal patterns)
One makes assump-
tions about cause-effect relationships
188
the
In the discounting
on the
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
I:
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
(e)
From American
Psychologist,
“The
AND PERCEPTION
Attribution to circumstances
Process of Causal Attribution,” by Flarold Kelley. Copyright
Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission of the publisher and the author.
Figure 9.2.
Various attribution possibilities.
189
© 1973 by the American
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
of past experience and learnings. As Kelit: “The mature individual
has a
basis
ley puts
.
.
perhaps you will use the schema of multiple
sufficient causes, in
.
repertoire of abstract ideas about the operation
by providing
attributional analysis,
fast
framework within which
bits
reasonably
good
that either
is able or the task was easy or both.
Figure 9.3(b) illustrates this possibility. Other
more complex schemata have been
studied by
Kelley, but these simple ones provide sufficient
a
and pieces of rele-
vant informtion can be fitted in order to
which you reason
your friend
and interaction of causal factors. These conceptions [enable one to make an] economical and
of the process for our purposes here.
Kelley summarizes the importance of the attribution process: “There is much evidence
that attributions do matter. Man’s concern with
illustration
draw
causal inferences.” 84
.
By
using experience and learning, the attributor brings various causal assumptions into
the reasons for events does not leave
play. The result is a causal schema in which assumed causes are placed in a contingent relation. A particularly good example of this occurs
when you have both an assumed internal cause
(in
the person) and a
(in
the situation). For example, your friend has
him
.
.
‘lost in
thought’ about those reasons. Rather, his causal
explanations play an important role in providing his impetus to action and in his decisions
among
competing external cause
A on a term paper. You assume
outcome occurred because of your
assignment was
of action. When the
the person unand acthe absence of the causal
alternative courses
attributions
doubtedly
appropriate,
are
fares better in his decisions
just received an
tions than he
that this
analysis.” 85
would
in
friend’s ability or because the
A
easy.
couple of causal schemata are possible
Criticism
here. If you follow the
sary causes
the
A
,
you
because he
This schema
84.
cess
is
schema of multiple necesyour friend got
able and the task was easy.
Laing’s theory
will reason that
is
illustrated in Figure 9.3(a).
proach.
Or
an intuitively appealing ap-
one
to the difference be-
direct perception
of behavior and
inferences about the perceptions of others.
weakness
Harold Kelley, Causal Schemata and the Attribution Pro(Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972), p. 2.
85.
E=
Present
is
sensitizes
It
tween the
is
that
of scope. The theory
is
Its
sugges-
Kelley, “Processes,” p. 127.
effect
Present
£
CAUSE B
CAUSE B
Absent
Absent
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
CAUSE A
CAUSE A
Multiple
necessary
Multiple
sufficient
causes
causes
(a)
(b)
From American
Psychologist, “The Process of Causal Attribution,” by Harold Kelley. Copyright
Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission of the publisher and the author.
Figure 9.3.
Causal schemata.
190
© 1973 by the American
—
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
of problems
five
tion, but
it
gives
I:
in interpersonal
communica-
will
make
to the theory presented in this chapter
in various situ-
ations. Its failure to operationalize concepts limits its
tionship.
The
cation
the essence of relationships.
is
tional theory
heuristic utility.
On
AND PERCEPTION
Clearly the key concept that provides unity
basis for understanding
little
what choices people
THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP, PRESENTATION,
the other hand, attribution theory pro-
theories recognize that
we know
is
rela-
communiFrom rela-
that people use
commu-
nication to define the nature of the relationship
vides an excellent set of operational concepts for
and
describing and explaining a broad range of so-
symmetrical, depending on the distribution of
It has been immensely popular
psychology because of its wide
applicability in various social phenomena and
power between the
Communicating
tremendous heuristic value 86
The major weakness of attribution theory
for the field of communication is one of scope.
One’s presentation of self to others
perceptions.
cial
in
social
its
yet
is
it
this
has dealt
work
little
is
in
on the
tion.
tion
is
we know
affected
these are
“phenomena
tion theory
is
that
direct
almost exclu-
much of our
by emotional
that
I
factors.
by interpersonal needs
is
governed
for inclusion,
and
Much communication
indirect, verbal
and nonverbal
—
is
designed to present various aspects of the self
that the
on the model of the rational
sively based
person, yet
is
part
situations as defined.
of messages to attribu-
In addition, the theory
of
in a relationship consists
ations they encounter, and they adapt to those
with interaction. The field
theorize and conduct
relation
participants.
control, and affection. People define the situ-
largely interpersonal,
ripe for scholars to
research
complementary or
self-presentation and interpersonal perception.
.
Ironically,
that relationships are
communicator
believes to be appropri-
ate to the situation.
Interpersonal perception
percep-
is
a
knowing other people by making
Jones says
process of
inferences
about qualities of others and the causes of their
behavior. Communicators not only make direct
don’t think attribu-
well designed to handle .” 87
inferences about other people’s behavior, but
they also infer what other people are perceiving
What Do We Know about
and thinking. Attribution, or the inference of
the causes of behavior, is based on information
about the person and the situation. Given a
certain amount of experience with another individual, one will attribute certain causes to the
other’s behavior by integrating information
about the individual’s motives and about the
Relational
Communication?
Interpersonal
portant
ways
communication functions in imof the individual. Three
in the life
such functions are linking the individual to the
environment, facilitating thinking, and regulating behavior. Social functions are also fulfilled
situation in
by interpersonal communication, most notably
tion
which the behavior occurs.
number of
Relationships consist of a
the establishment, maintenance, and modificain
of relationships.
sonal perception.
86.
Harvey, Ickes, and Kidd,
New
Directions, vol. 2,
Some of
these,
which
are
taken up in the next chapter, include disclosure
376—
and understanding, attraction and relational
maintenance, and conflict.
77.
87.
factors
addition to self-presentation and interper-
Ibid., p. 384.
191
CHAPTER
Interpersonal Contexts
Theories of Disclosure,
Attraction,
Interpersonal communication, the topic of
chapters 9 and 10, is considered by most communication scholars to be highly central to the
discipline
study of communication. Consequently,
group.
erates
much
interest,
and
a substantial
it
gen-
clinical
among
and
several in psychology.
orientation of
body of
The
most humanistic psy-
Humanistic theories stand
They always
with relationship
jective discovery. 2
in opposition to
the deterministic epistemology of behaviorism.
Those
most directly with relationships,
although the theories presented in this chapter
theories deal
stress subjective
response over ob-
The key epistemological
point of the humanistic school
is
that variable
and generalizations about human behavior are trivial compared with the richness of
analysis
The division beis somewhat arbi-
also contribute to this topic.
tween these two chapters
Conflict
chologists remains the primary focus of this
theory has been developed to explain it. The
last chapter was devoted to theories that deal
as a central concept.
II:
individual
consequently, they should be read together to provide a fuller understanding of
Johari
interpersonal processes.
We
human
experience.
trary;
we
will look at a number of
on three major topics: (1) understanding as a goal of communication and
disclosure as a means of achieving that goal, (2)
interpersonal attraction and other factors that
lead to the development and maintenance of
In this chapter
theories centering
and (3) social conflict and the speof communication in conflict situ-
role
ations.
The
begin with Joseph Luft’s model of human
it provides a basic introduc-
interaction because
of disclosure and understandThis model, known as the Johari Window,
widely used in textbooks on interpersonal
communication. 4 The model, illustrated in Figtion to the ideas
ing. 3
is
ure 10.1, contains four quadrants that represent
the person in relation to others.
relationships,
cial
Window
It
awareness-understanding-disclosure
Quadrant
theories here, as those in the previ-
ous chapter, deal most centrally with dyadic
communication, but they also apply to group
and organizational contexts.
1,
is
an
model.
the open quadrant, contains
all
the
aspects (for example, feelings and behaviors)
known
to self and others.
quadrant,
is
known
Quadrant
2, the blind
to others but not to self.
The Hidden quadrant
is
known
to self but not
Abraham H. Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human
(New York: The Viking Press, 1971), p. 4.
For an excellent analysis of the epistemology of humanistic psychology, see Harold G. Coward and Joseph R.
Royce, “Toward an Epistemological Basis for Humanistic
1.
Theories of Disclosure and Understanding
Nature
An
important contribution to theory in interpersonal communication is that of humanistic
psychology. Humanistic psychology arose in
response to a perceived inadequacy in the two
2.
Psychology,” in Humanistic Psychology: Concepts and CritiJoseph Royce and Leendert P. Mos (New York:
Plenum, 1981), pp. 109-34.
cisms, ed.
giant branches of psychology, the psychoana-
3.
and the behavioristic. As such humanistic
psychology has come to be known as “the third
lytic
force.” 1
Today
it
retains
its
identity as
4.
Of Human
Johari refers to the
first
Interaction (Palo Alto:
National
names of the model’s
creators,
Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham.
193
i
Joseph Luft,
Press Books, 1969).
one sub-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
to others.
A
presumed
to exist, although
unknown quadrant
fourth,
it
also
is
cannot be ob-
served directly.
Lufos model
about
human
based on eight assumptions
is
even though they are difficult to quantify.
Sixth, the most important aspects of behavior
are found in process and change rather than
As
structure.
behavior. These assumptions are
humanists
of this assumption, the
change and growth in their
a result
stress
worth repeating here because they underlie
most of the humanistic thinking, including all
various teachings. Seventh, principles governing behavior should be discovered inductively
human behavior
What is im-
by examining personal experience rather than
by applying abstractions deductively. Again,
theories in this section. First,
should be approached
holistically.
portant in analyzing behavior
is
the
we
whole per-
see a
phenomenological orientation
stress-
son in context. Second, what is happening to a
person or group is best understood subjectively
ing personal experience over abstraction.
Eighth, behavior should be understood in its
terms of the individual’s perceptions and feelBecause of this premise, the humanists are
sometimes considered to be phenomenologists.
holistic nature
Third, behavior
first
in
complexity rather than in rigid simplicity. This
final assumption brings us full circle back to the
ings.
is primarily emotional, not raThis assumption explains the emphasis
on feelings in the humanistic approach. Fourth,
the person and the group tend to operate with-
and
affects
and
is
affected
Window
as
expressed in the
calls attention to
by
trust are highly important,
disclosure occurs,
moving
feelings
havior from quadrant 3 to quadrant
Known
to
Not known
self
self
1
2
to
Open
is
difficult to discover,
become known
the use
to
others
and be1.
Good
communication also involves feedback, which
causes feelings and behaviors to go from quadrant 2 to quadrant 1. The unknown area of
quadrant 4
Known
those
known and those
of awareness. More importantly
from a communication point of view, it stresses
the changes in awareness that occur over time.
Ideally, quadrant 1 should increase in size with
communication. If communication is good,
that are out
others. Fifth, qualitative factors such as acceptance, conflict,
Johari
aspects of the person that are
out awareness of the sources of their behavior.
Thus the humanists stress the need for increased
awareness of how one
of the person,
assumption.
The
tional.
of
in retrospect
through
but
it
can
reflection,
certain drugs, projective technique,
and dreaming.
Blind
Luft summarizes the importance of under-
standing in the following excerpt. His words
also justify the
work of
the entire humanistic
school:
4
3
Efforts over time to increase man’s understanding of
Not known
Hidden
the world and of
Unknown
to others
life
have apparently not sig-
nificantly reduced his doubts about meaningfulness
in the universe.
derives
Perhaps
from human
it
is
true that unless he
interaction the special quality
of
understood, he will suffer the despair of
meaninglessness no matter what he achieves and how
well he understands everything else. Feeling understood appears then to be a necessary though perhaps
not a sufficient condition for man to come to terms
with the world and with himself. Hypothetically,
feeling
From Of Human
Interaction, by Joseph Luft. Copyright
Reprinted by permission of
Mayfield Publishing Co., formerly National Press Books.
© 1969 by the National Press.
Figure 10.1. Johari Window.
194
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
every man can offer the gift of really feeling understood to someone, provided he can relate with him in
a
way
that
makes
possible to co-experience
it
what
is
going on within.
Being understanding, when one is able to do so,
rewarding in its own right even though it is not the
same as feeling understood. But when it is mutual,
when you and I understand as well as feel understood
at the moment to affect behavior.
Consistent with the system approach, Rogers
conscious
describes the organism as a system in
change
As
is
simultaneously, then for that moment the world
home and bread is baking in the oven. 5
is
in
one part
affects the
the child matures,
phenomenal
becomes
field
gestalt
composed of perceptions of the characof the
or ‘me’ and the perceptions of
‘I’ or ‘me’ to others and
The Johari Window provides an
to the full-blown theory
of interpersonal relations by Carl Rogers. 6 Rogers is
known as the father of client-centered therapy
and of the encounter group. He is a giant in the
field of psychology and one of the leaders of the
“third force” of humanism. The self-theory of
Carl Rogers is the most comprehensive theoretical
statement relating the humanistic approach
to interpersonal
communication.
his theory from
Rogers begins
a
phe-
the totality of one’s experience, and it resides in
the person (organism). It is completely private
and can only be inferred by others. Rogers believes with Laing (Chapter 9) that one can never
reality as perceived
and
Human
5.
Luft,
6.
The theory
centered
best
summarized
gruence thus
is
a
kind of internal consistency in
moment. Incongruence
the organism at a given
when
occurs
the person does not fully behave
or feel consistently with the totality of experience. Incongruence is much like Laing’s notion
of the false and untenable position. Incongru-
All
of us have
In other
a
tendency to actualize the
words we seek experiences
self.
that will
enhance the self, leading to autonomy and
growth. This growth process is frustrated by
7.
stemming from incongruence.
our choices are not adequately symbolized (unclear), we cannot distinguish
growthful from regressive behavior. Both the
felt
cause and cure of this consequence
lie in
inter-
personal communication.
communicating with others, we project
positive and negative evaluations of the other’s
self. Negative attributions and injunctions tend
to create an incongruity between the person’s
self and the phenomenal field. For example, if a
In
need not be
Interaction, p. 145.
is
Rogers’s key concept is congruence, a correspondence or consistency between the conscious self and the phenomenal field. This con-
When
by the individual. At any moment one’s phenomenal field consists of those aspects that are
conscious by virtue of symbolization and those
that are unconscious. Rogers points out, however, that a particular experience
of life, together with the values attached to these perceptions.” 7 Rogers depicts an actual self and an ideal self.
the confusion
experience another’s experience. Thus the person’s behavior results most directly from the in-
—
‘I’
to various aspects
ence leads to maladjustment; congruence reflects maturity and adjustment.
nomenological position. The organism is the
locus of all experience. The phenomenal field is
ternal experience
self.
is central to Rogers’s theory. The
“the organized, consistent conceptual
teristics
we move
identified as the
is
self
the relationships of the
excellent in-
portion of the
This concept
Rogers’s Theory of Congruence
troduction to the theories that focus on disclosure and understanding. With this introduction
which
whole.
a
in Carl Rogers, Client-
Therapy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951), chap.
child
11; and "A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and InterperDeveloped in the Client-centered
Framework,” in Psychology: A Study of Science, ed. S. Koch
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), vol. 3, 184-256. An excellent secondary source is Gardner Lindzey and Calvin S.
Hall, Theories of Personality (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
is
told that overeating
is
wrong
or
is
pun-
may develop an
untrue self-feeling. “Overeating is wrong” is
incongruent with the experience of wanting to
ished for overeating, the child
sonal Relationships, as
eat
1970), chap. 13.
more.
Rogers,
195
Two
voices tug at the child.
“A Theory,”
p. 200.
One
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
says,
“You
eat.”
Confusion
love to eat.”
results,
The other
which
“Don’t
and functioning
frustrates the ac-
the relationship
says,
tualizing tendency.
What
is
therefore,
tive
is
regard.
moves
needed in interpersonal relations,
what Rogers calls unconditional posiSuch an interpersonal attitude re-
the threat to congruency, thus
ing the actualizing tendency.
tings in
which change of this
promot-
Two
formal setsort can occur are
client-centered therapy and the encounter
group. Rogers would like to see all interpersonal relations
at this
process
First,
Rogers
mutual
parties;
satisfaction in
person enters
a relationship
“The
classic article
Characteristics of a Helping
Relationship,” Rogers outlines ten qualities of a
good helping
relationship. 9
These are also the
of interpersonal communication
ideal qualities
generally.
able.
postulates that the threat-free environment
2.
promoted by positive regard allows the person
to examine internal inconsistencies and restruc-
They express
their
separate selves
unam-
biguously.
3.
They
ture the self-concept without fear
possess positive attitudes of
and caring for the other.
to be accepting
4.
Each partner keeps
of judgment.
At the same time the person increases the ability
of others. Here lies the connection between self-regard and regard for others.
People
with
the intent of facilitating growth on the part of
the other, a helping relationship results. In his
T The communicators are perceived by one
another as trustworthy, or consistently depend-
become more supportive.
Now let us look more closely
of growth via communication.
When one
both
in
8
.
his or her
own
warmth
separate
identity.
who
tend to be defensive (incongruent)
lack self-regard as well as regard for others. As
5.
Each partner permits the other
to
have
a
separate identity.
one becomes more self-accepting (congruent),
one more readily accepts the behaviors of
others. A threat-free environment marked by
acceptance allows the person to continually examine the self and to change throughout life.
The helping relationship is marked by empathy. (Each communicator attempts to under-
6.
stand the feelings of the other.)
7.
The helper
accepts the various facets of the
other’s experience as
Congruence is contagious through communication. If one person in a relationship behaves
openly and congruently, with positive regard
communicated by
the
other.
8.
The
partners respond with sufficient sen-
sitivity to allay threat.
and acceptance for the other, the other person
will follow suit. Thus we have the main post-
9.
ulate in Rogers’s theory:
threat
They
are able to free themselves
from the
of evaluation by the other.
Each person, recognizing that the other is
changing, is flexible enough to permit change.
10.
Assuming (a) a minimal willingness on the part of
two people to be in contact; (b) an ability and minimal willingness on the part of each to receive com-
Self-Disclosure
munication from the other; and (c) assuming the
contact to continue over a period of time; then the
following relationship is hypothesized to hold true.
Foundations:
The greater the congruence of experience, awareness and communication on the part of one individual, the more the ensuing relationship will involve a
tendency toward reciprocal communication with
quality of increasing congruence; a tendency
Sidney Jourard.
The
picture
we
have just discussed of the ideal relationship is
one of disclosure and understanding in a
threat-free environment. A theorist who has
investigated this process of self-disclosure
a
toward
8.
more mutually accurate understanding of the communications; improved psychological adjustments
Carl Rogers,
On
Mifflin, 1961), p. 344.
9.
196
Ibid.
is
Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton
.
,
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
Sidney Jourard
10
Jourard
.
at
is
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION,
once social
philosopher, clinical psychologist, and empiriHe has written at length about
cal researcher.
human
the
condition.
As
a clinician
he has
related the healthy state
of the person to a
willingness to explore the world openly, and as
a researcher he has conducted numerous investigations of disclosing behavior. Jourard’s pre-
human being
scription for the
is
openness or
transparency
Transparency
is
a
two-sided coin, involving
in part the individual’s willingness to let the
world of things and other people disclose themselves. Jourard sees the world in its many forms
as constantly disclosing itself,
receiver
may
or
may
means, on one
as
not be open to perceiving
multiple world view.
this
but the person
Being transparent
allowing the world to disThe other side of the coin is
side,
close itself freely.
the person’s willingness to disclose oneself to
Thus the ideal interpersonal relationship
acknowledgement
(b)
that the world has changed,
shattering of the present experienced
a
‘world structure,’ and
Growth
in this
communicators self-disclose to one another
their many changing faces. To accept one’s own
changes requires verification via acceptance on
the part of others.
‘low pressure’ where
you who
Rogers’s view;
this philosophical position
that they became
healthy as a result of their willingness to dis-
moving
openness to the world. The sick person
willing to experience the
and
is
world
is
of
not
ways
The growing
come to new life
in various
Such change is the essense of personal
growth. “The awareness that things are differis not growth, though it is a necessary condition of growth. A growth cycle calls for (a) an
positions.
to
Himself
(New
my
being happen
me
the inside, and to
This notion, of course,
is
my
be-
strikingly like
is
it
of Laing. Jourard,
in
fol-
Transparency, thus, is a multifaceted mode of
being
it calls for a courage and a willingness to let
the world be what it is, to let the other be who he is,
and to let oneself be who one is. It calls as well for a
commitment to truth, as it changeably presents itself.
It calls for a readiness to suspend concepts and beliefs
about self, others, and world, and to perceive what
is. It calls for a willingness to suspend imagination,
wish, and fantasy, a readiness to inform and revise
concepts with fresh inputs of perception. That it calls
for courage to disclose oneself to the world is selfevident
13
.
Elaborations.
Man
let
—
to-
ent
Sidney Jourard, Disclosing
can
lowing passage:
therefore fixed or stagnant.
person, being transparent, will
I
me from
studied with Laing for a time.
Jourard summarizes transparency in the
10.
as a direct result
to
fact,
close themselves to the therapist. Thus Jourard
equates sickness with closedness and health
with transparency.
person’s
—
also detect the influence
He found
a
if others
an extension of the basic
humanistic idea. In Jourard’s work you may
observing that his patients tended to be
Jourard sees growth,
grow
receive the outside layer of
fully.
ward new ways of behaving,
difficult to
It is
around you are not open to your disclosures of
if you suspend any preconceptions you may have of me and my being,
and invite me simply to be and to disclose this
being to you, you create an ambience, an area of
change. “But
ing .” 12
Jourard conceived
fashion relates closely to
interpersonal communication, since the disclosing world is largely social. Ideally, growing
simultaneously
such that people allow others to experience
fully and are open to experiencing others
after
restructuring, reto-
ity .” 11
them
closed to the world.
(c) a
of the world-structure which encompasses the new disclosure of changed realtalization,
and be disclosed, to you and to
others.
is
AND CONFLICT
disclosure
York:
Van Nostrand, 1968); Self-Disclosure: An Experimental
Analysis of the Transparent Self (New York: John Wiley
Sons, 1971); The Transparent Self (New York: Van Nostrand
Since Jourard’s ideas on self-
were published, he and
11. Jourard, Disclosing
&
12.
Reinhold, 1971).
,
p. 154.
Ibid., p. 162.
13. Jourard, Self-Disclosure
197
p. 182.
several others
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
have conducted research that elaborates the rudimentary notions. 14 Here are some of these
highly intimate settings than in less intimate
ones. (11) Satisfaction and disclosure have a
research findings in general form:
curvilinear relationship; that
(1)
Disclosure
increases with increased relational intimacy. (2)
Disclosure increases when rewarded. (3) Dis-
faction
closure increases with the need to reduce uncer-
This
tainty in a relationship. (4) Disclosure tends to
be reciprocal (dyadic effect). (5)
be higher disclosers than men.
close
men
more with individuals they like, whereas
more with people they trust. (7)
is regulated by norms of appropri-
disclose
is
related to positive dis-
closure but not to negative disclosure.
(9)
Posi-
is more likely in nonintimate or
moderately intimate relationships. (10) Nega-
tive disclosure
tive disclosure occurs
with greater frequency
greatest at
last finding,
have
relied
on the
excellent analysis
,
ed. Gerald Miller (Beverly Hills, Calif.;
lications, 1976), pp. 197-216.
Disclosure:
A
See also
P.
Sage Pub-
W. Cozby,
of
dis-
is
to be sup-
The humanists
interesting in that
tween
call for a linear
it
satisfaction
relationship be-
and disclosure, such that the
greater the disclosure the higher the satisfaction
the relationship.
This difference between
from the distinction
between normative theory and descriptive
theory. The former states what should be, the
latter what is. Shirley Gilbert suggests three
in
curvilinear and linear arises
conditions necessary for Jourard’s ideal to occur
in
and summary of
ShirleyJ. Gilbert, “Empirical and Theoretical Extensions of
Self-Disclosure,” in Explorations in Interpersonal Communication
levels
which seems
paints a different picture than Jourard’s ideal.
in a relationship.
I
relational satis-
is,
moderate
ported by several studies,
Women tend to
Women dis-
(6)
Disclosure
ateness.
14.
(8) Attraction
is
closure (see Figure 10.2). 15
“Self-
Literature Review,” Psychological Bulletin 79
the participants
must
regard in the relationship. Gilbert describes in-
timacy
(1973): 73-91.
First,
have healthy self-concepts. Second, they must
be willing to take relational risks. Third, they
must be committed to unconditional positive
in these terms:
There are interpersonal price tags attached to intimate relationships. Intimacy, as a dimension of affection, may not be a unidimensional construct. It
seems to be comprised of not only feelings (satisfaction) but also
commitment
(willingness to risk). In-
timacy refers not only to the depth of exchange, both
verbally and nonverbally, but also to the depth of
acceptance or confirmation which characterizes a relationship. Thus, “intimate disclosure” and “intimate relationships” need to be clearly conceptualized
and differentiated in future disclosure studies. While
disclosure has been established as an index of communicative depth in human relationships, it does not
guarantee an intimate relationship 16
.
Criticism
Adapted from ShirleyJ. Gilbert, “Empirical and
Theoretical Extensions of Self-Disclosure,” pp. 197—216
As you can imagine, these theories have been
controversial. Generally speaking, they have
been challenged on two fronts: theoretical appropriateness and validity. First, their prescrip-
in
Gerald R. Miller, ed., Explorations in Interpersonal
Communication,
1976 Sage Publications, Inc., with
permission.
tive
©
and
holistic
approach prevents productive
investigation of actual
communication process-
Figure 10.2. Linear and curvilinear patterns in
15.
Adapted from Gilbert, “Empirical,”
self-disclosure.
16.
Ibid., pp. 212-13.
198
p. 210.
.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
These theories tell us in a general way how
we ought to communicate with others, but they
say little about the nature of ordinary commues.
nication. This criticism also indirectly questions
the heuristic value
of these theories. (The work
on
is
self-disclosure
critic levels this
One
an exception here.)
“Hu-
objection in harsh terms:
manistic psychologists
make
statements in-
tended as contributions to psychological
knowledge, as well as discussing the nature of
psychological knowledge and how it should be
sought. But this is not all that they do. They
organize various forms of psychotherapy. They
also publish a great deal of exhortatory and
inspirational literature which is designed to help
its
readers live
amounts
more
to attempted
satisfactory lives.
It
thus
psychotherapy of a mass
audience .” 17
The
first is
them for preaching dysfunctional practices;
namely, insensitivity to roles, stylized language, lack of rhetorical adaptation, insensitivity to information propriety, and inability to
express ideas in multiple ways. Humanists predictably respond by accusing such critics of failing to understand the humanistic approach and
oversimplifying
summarize
on incorrect assumptions about the needs of
scholarship on behavior. Calling humanistic
psychology a “protest movement,” Daniel Ber-
20 (This
criticism led to the
an Alternative View
In criticizing humanistic approaches to under-
standing, Roderick Hart and his colleagues have
created an alternative conceptualization 21 For
.
these theorists effective communication does
not arise from congruence and disclosure but
rhetorical sensitivity
categories of
Relying on the
Donald Darnell and Wayne
Brockriede, Hart contrasts three general types
of communicators
22
.
Noble
selves
conform
adapting or adjusting to others. Rhetorical
of five elements of traditional
psychology: the scientific method, empirical
tors
methodology, behaviorism, lack of holistic orientation, and inappropriate research questions 18
.
He
criticizes
these protests as over-
statements, if not as totally wrong.
to
Carl Rogers’s image. These people stick to their
personal ideals without variation and without
lyne believes that these theories are misguided
in their protesting
we
in the following section.)
Rhetorical Sensitivity as
from
two forms. The
movement is based
validity criticism has
that the humanistic
it .
formulation of a competing theory, which
will
are individuals
who,
at
reflec-
the opposite ex-
treme, are molding themselves to others’
wishes, with no personal scruples to follow.
Rhetorically sensitive individuals,
as
a
third
type, moderate these extremes. Rhetorical sen-
ous. Critics state that the prescriptions for im-
embodies concern for self, concern for
others, and a situational attitude. The theorists
outline five attributes of rhetorical sensitivity.
proved communication are wrong. One of the
strongest statements of this point of view is that
of Roderick Hart and Don Burks 19 Calling
each individual
The second
validity challenge
is
sitivity
more
seri-
.
humanistic theories “the school of ‘expression,
joy, and metaphor,’ ” Hart and Burks criticize
17. Daniel E. Berlyne, “Humanistic Psychology as a ProMovement,” in Humanistic Psychology: Concepts and
Joseph Royce and Leendert P. Mos (New
York: Plenum, 1981), p. 261.
First,
rhetorically sensitive people accept per-
sonal complexity; that
is, they understand that
is a composite of many selves.
Second, such individuals avoid rigidity in
communicating with others. Third, the rhetori-
cally
sensitive person attempts to balance
test
Criticisms, ed.
20.
Alan L.
ern Speech
18.
Ibid.
19.
Roderick P. Hart and Don M. Burks, “Rhetorical Senand Social Interaction,” Speech Monographs 39
Sillars,
“Expression and Control in Human
on Humanistic Psychology,” West-
Interaction: Perspectives
38 (1974): 269-77.
21. Roderick P. Hart,
Robert E. Carlson, and William F.
Communication and the AssessMonographs
sitivity
Eadie, “Attitudes toward
(1972): 75-91. See also
Abraham Wandersman, Paul PopDavid Ricks, eds., Humanism and Behaviorism:
Dialogue and Growth (Elmsford, N.Y. Pergamon Press,
ment of Rhetorical
pen, and
47 (1980): 1-22.
22.
1976).
municating
199
Sensitivity,” Communication
Donald Darnell and Wayne Brockriede, Persons Com(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976).
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
with the interests of others,
self-interests
sensitivity
called
interaction
a
ter 8,
consciousness
speech communication
ity itself
of the appropriateness of communicating or not
cation as adaptive,
communicating
pected in
particular ideas in different sit-
uations. Fifth, such persons realize that an idea
can be expressed in
their
message
many ways, and
The term
rhetorical tradition.
Fourth, rhetorically sensitive people are aware
rooted in the
is
rhetorical sensitiv-
implies a particular view of
many
communi-
which would not be ex-
other communication-related
This view leads to one of the
disciplines.
strengths of this approach; namely, that
they adapt
to the audience in the particular
situation.
Many
tion process.
In order to better understand the rhetorically
is
it
framed entirely from within the communicaas
we have
from other fields,
on communication,
theories
seen, cast light
sensitive person in contrast
but in actuality they deal with secondary con-
and rhetorical
cerns.
reflector,
with the noble self
Hart and his colleagues
RHETSEN and
3000 students at 49 universities and to other groups as well. They recognize that most people have varying degrees
of all three types within themselves but that a
Speech communication
created a questionnaire called
disciplines that has
administered
focus.
it
to over
given type predominates.
They summarize
their findings as follows:
Our
findings
greatly
amount
ideological zeal
As mentioned above, one of
theory’s strengths
set
(1)
people vary
from members. 23
is
placed
final
is
its obvious and direct contrast
with the theories of humanistic psychology. In
addition Hart and Burks themselves apply their
concept to interpersonal communication.
However, their theory also applies to the domain of persuasion and, by extension, to all
communication contexts, including mass
communication.
Hart and his colleagues work in the
pline of speech communication. This fact
it
is
sig-
helps us to understand the
orientation of this theory.
23.
disci-
As we saw
in
to achieve
that
is
more
it
provides a
effective
advantage of the theory
is its
parsimony;
Ibid., p. 19.
200
it
of concepts from which much elabora-
tive theorizing can follow in the future.
The
main weaknesses involve
theory’s
epistemology.
The theory
temological assumptions.
exercise
trait,
little
its
has an interesting
and not altogether consistent
It
set
treats
of episrhetorical
implying that individuals
choice over whether they are
noble selves, rhetorical reflectors, or rhetori-
Also the theory inmeasuring that is, objec-
cally sensitive individuals.
cludes a
tively
method
for
discovering
— an
—
individual’s
rhetorical
tendencies.
This theory’s aim of classifying individuals
one of three groups is overly simple. In
what ways can the individual change in rhetorical orientation, and how much of a role does
proactive choice play? Another problem with
into
the trait approach to rhetorical sensitivity
Chap-
com-
elegant in the sense of presenting a small
cluster
may
here because of
communication
munication. The theory is also heuristic because
of its involvement of the RHETSEN scale. A
sensitivity as a
sensitivity
this
deals specifically
it
a central
of sensible principles that can be used by the
communicator
toward
some of these
in their attitudes
The theory of rhetorical
nificant because
that
is
with message sending,
concern. Another strength
to at least this:
from one another
encoding interpersonal messages; (2)
variances are partly a function of specific philosophical, economic, geographic, and cultural forces impinging upon people; (3) certain subcultural systems
(families, ethnic groups, religious assemblages, etc.)
reinforce and inhibit certain attitudes toward communication; (4) exceptionally “liberal” systems
foster Noble Self predilections while especially “conservative” persons embrace Rhetorical Reflector attitudes; (5) rhetorical sensitivity seems to thrive in
those middle-class environments which do not de-
mand
Criticism.
is one of the few
communication as its central
is
that
does not allow us to understand whether, or
under what conditions, a single individual may
it
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
act as
noble
self,
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION,
rhetorical reflector, or rhetori-
AND CONFLICT
reacting to another person,
cally sensitive person.
tion
of our look, our
facial
we
shift the direc-
expression changes,
we converse, which in turnf involves how
fast we speak, oarwocal expressiveness
and
and
.
.
.
Maintenance
muf-speech volume. So, responsiveness to another is simply indexed by the amount of
This section summarizes theories related to
why people form relationships and why nela-
change in facial and vocal expressions, the rate
at which one speaks
and the Volume of
Interpersonal Attraction and Relational
tioi/ship's
.
proaches are djxcuSsedl: Mehrabian
V theory
.
The dimension -most related
of
immediacy, Newcombys^cognitive approach,
Byrne’s learning theory, and Thibaut and
Kelley’s social exchange theory.
.
£ech .” 25
are.nipntajned or dissolved. /Fpup ap-
attraction
to interpersonal
isVhe itnmedWcy metaphopA Here
is
—Mehrabiain’s immediacy principle: A basic and
transciiltural jifement
of
human liMTs
that
people approach and get more inydfved with
things they like, things that^rfipeal to them
Mehrabian’s Concept oflmmediacy
Albert Mehrabian has proposed an insightful
analysis of communication behavior, which
and they avoid things that do not appeal to
them, or that induce pain and fear .” 26 In inter-
places attraction in a larger interactional con-
personal communication, immediacy
text 24
by many verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Liking is seen in a number of behaviors that increase the closeness and directness of the participants. Avoidance, on the other hand, can be
seen in behaviors that decrease openness and
directness between the communicators.
There are several obvious immediacy behaviors. The most common relate to interper-
According to Mehrabian, communicaby a threedimensional framework. The factors include
liking (immediacy), dominance (power), and
responsiveness. These factors are considered to
.
tion behaviors can be classified
be universal across cultures. Actual verbal and
nonverbal behaviors in any act of interpersonal
communication can be understood in terms of
these dimensions.
Most relationships have a dominance or
sonal distance.
dimension, which explains certain behaviors by the participants. Such behaviors
status
constitute the
factor
Basically,
this
is
the
factor
is
24.
As Mehrabian points
greater sensory
which explains
accompany
liking
and
why
vari-
as angular axes
of body position, accompany dislike. The
media chosen for communication may also relate to immediacy. For example, a telephone
conversation is less immediate than face-to-face
talking, but communicating via letters is less
immediate than conversing by telephone.
reis
Less obvious, perhaps, are the verbal aspects
of immediacy. More immediate statements tend
to reflect closer distance in time and space. For
out, responsiveness
primarily a matter of speed and loudness. “In
25. Ibid., p. 118.
Albert Mehrabian, Silent Messages (Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth,
elicits
higher incidence of eye contact and face-
ous avoidance behaviors, such
correlated with emotional arousal and stimulation.
addition attraction
to-face stances
vary.
The second communication
definitely
as opposed to leaning
of attraction. Touching behavior
part of the immediacy dimension.
stimulation between people,
why
Lack of power or status may be observed in
hunched shoulders, cramped gestures, or bodily tension. Like Mehrabian’s other two dimensions, this metaphor is standard across cultures,
even though specific cultural behaviors may
sponsiveness metaphor.
a sign
In
being relaxed.
right, using large gestures, or
Leaning forward,
back,
is
power metaphor. For example,
correlated with standing up-
power may be
reflected
We tend to stand closer to people
we like.
is
is
26. Ibid., p. 113.
1971.)
201
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
example, “Here’s Kathy” is more immediate
than “There’s Kathy.” Ambiguity is related to
the consistency theories of change.
lower immediacy in that ambiguous statements
tend to be overinclusive. Thus “It was a pleasant evening” is less immediate than “I really
enjoyed your company.” Another sign of im-
interpersonal attraction. In this broader context
mediacy
is
work
Such speech has fewer
qualifiers
statements. For example, “I
more immediate than
“I
want
it
to stay”
is
might be
all
in
two
Newcomb’s
is
theory of
a
Newcomb
envisions a cognitive system in
which various personal orientations interrelate.
An orientation is a relationship between a person
and some aspect of the environment. Orientation involves directedness, selectivity, and attention. If I am oriented toward something, I
right if I stay a bit longer.”
Mehrabian’s ideas are helpful
elaborated form
proach to attraction.
and conditional
suppose
more
can see the important contribution of his
ideas. 28 His view is a well-known cognitive ap-
said.
is
its
we
the apparent willingness of the
speaker to take responsibility for what
in
tend to be directed to
re-
One
it,
attend to
it
in a selec-
spects. First, they describe the behaviors
tive
traction;
personal, concrete, or abstract objects.
of atsecond, they place liking in the
broader context of three-dimensional communication.
plain the
purpose
two
What Mehrabian
phenomenon of
we
has not done
is
attraction. For this
look to other theories. There are
The
cognitive approach
tive or negative)
uses a
system paradigm to explain the interrelationships among the elements of the person’s cognitive system, one of which is orientations to-
ward other people. The
reinforcement approach
relationships.
respect to theoretical differences,
it
A
per-
and
intensity
(strong or weak).
Newcomb
cognitive content, or attributions
made about
Newcomb
calls
the
offers the fol-
lowing example of cognitive content: “One
parent’s attraction toward a child may have
strong cognitive components of pride and resemblance to himself, while for the other parent
warmth of personal response may be a more
important component.” 29
One’s orientations interrelate to form a cog-
These approaches are not necessarily inconsistent with
one another. Both contribute to our understanding of the process, as Byrne points out:
“With
number of
Orientations also possess what
object of orientation.
explains attraction as a learned behavior based
on stimulus-response
can be oriented to a
son has orientations toward other people,
things, and concepts or ideas. An orientation
has a number of qualities, including sign (posi-
ex-
general approaches to explaining interper-
sonal attraction.
way.
nitive system. Specifically, three sorts
of orienwe have orientations of
These are interpersonal orientations.
Newcomb uses the term attraction generally
here to imply both positive and negative orientations toward objects or concepts. Finally,
may
tations interact. First,
be noted that the established empirical relation-
attraction.
ships ... are interpretable in either cognitive or
27.
reinforcement terms. In fact, the two theoretical approaches do not constitute alternative and
mutually exclusive explanatory systems. Inwe have two broadly different interpretaschemas which utilize different languages
there are one’s perceived orientations of others.
and which apparently lead to somewhat
ent types of empirical research.” 27
often in the theories of interpersonal
Newcomb recognizes the concept of
metaperception that we have encountered so
Here
stead,
tional
differ-
commu-
nication.
two kinds of systems exist within
Newcomb’s framework. The individual system
is the person’s phenomenal system of orientaBasically,
Newcomb’s
Cognitive Approach
You encountered the theory of Theodore Newcomb in Chapter 8. That chapter mentions his
notion of straining toward symmetry as one of
tion
28.
Donn
demic
Byrne, The Attraction Paradigm
(New
toward another person and
Press, 1971), p. 266.
29.
202
a relevant
Theodore Newcomb, The Acquaintance
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961).
York: Aca-
Ibid., p. 6.
Process
ob-
(New
*
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
between the
of orientations
Such a system is viewed through the eyes
of the perceiver. The second type of system is
collective and is viewed from outside the individuals involved. In both cases three elements
are present: person A, person B, and object X.
relationships
In the individual system, illustrated in Figure
to the self as well as to the other person.
ject.
10.3(a),
four orientations interact. These in-
pairs
as explained next.
In the individual
must be met.
An
system certain conditions
individual system requires
that the perceiver regard the object as relevant
perceiver
must
individual system whether
A
toward A, A’s attitude toward X, B’s perceived
attitude toward X. The collective system, illus-
perception does not matter.
It is
trated in Figure 10.3(b), includes not only A’s
exists. If both parties see the coorientation,
orientations, but B’s orientations as well.
broad bands
The
in Figure 10.3(b) indicate the inter-
The
attribute an attitude to B. In the
clude A’s attraction toward B, B’s attraction
has an accurate
only necessary
for the perceiver to believe that coorientation
then
model may be used. The collecmodel usually presumes communication,
the collective
tive
either verbal or nonverbal,
X.
For example, suppose
between the persons
in regard to
met
woman
a
a
man has
He is
in the library.
recently
attracted
positively to her and admires her apparent
interest in reading. In addition
he believes she
is
Here we have an
example of an individual system. This man has
orientations toward the woman and toward
positively attracted to him.
reading.
new
X
(a)
Individual system of
Person
He
also attributes orientations to his
acquaintance. If the
woman
shares the per-
ception of attraction and coorientation to reading, a
A
collective system
You
will recall
exists.
from Chapter 3
that
one of
is that they tend to be
homeostatic (balanced). Changes that cause impressures
for other changes that
balance create
the qualities of systems
system to balance. In this way a
system maintains itself. Such is the case with
the cognitive systems described by Newcomb.
will return the
He
explains this
phenomenon: “In propositoward
upon A to
tional form, the stronger A’s attraction
B
the greater the strength of the force
maintain minimal discrepancy between his
(b) Collective
system of Persons
A
and
B
and B’s
ward
From The Acquaintance Process by Theodore M. Newcomb.
he perceives the
same X; and,
own
latter,
to-
if positive attraction
remains constant, the greater the perceived dis-
©
1961 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Reprinted by permission of Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
CBS College Publishing.
Copyright
attitude, as
the
crepancy in attitude the stronger the force to
reduce it. We shall refer to this force as
strain.” 30
*Arrows point from orienting person to person or object of
orientation. Broken lines refer to orientations attributed by
A to B; solid lines refer to own orientations of person from
Thus strain toward symmetry is a function
of the attraction of one person toward the other.
Two other factors also relate. The importance of
whom
arrow stems. Broad bands refer to relationships
between orientations connected by bands.
Figure 10.3. Schematic representation of systems
30.
203
Ibid., p. 12.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
the object to the person
the
amount of
our attention to the ways
positively related to
is
strain, as
the perceived
is
between
the persons. To continue our example, if the
man is highly attracted to the woman, if he
values reading and sees it as important to his
relationship with the woman, pressure is thus
learned behavior.
of meaning and
the librarian
— she was only
— something
tem.
The man may come
changing
change
increases in frequency; if punished,
Byrne applies
distort
He may
reduce the im-
portance of his interest in reading.
He may reduce
is
the
woman
this basic
A
than punishments.
happens:
ship. Finally
conditional stimulus)
woman.
— and most important
—he may become
for the topic
thus explained in terms
is
of the system dynamics involving the
response).
partici-
pants’ various interrelated orientations.
This analysis suggests that
new
information
The opposite
Here is what
environment ( unbrings about pleasant or un(
implicit affective
This internal response or feeling
is
an
intervening variable leading to an evaluation of
the stimulus as
New informacongruent with one of a person’s relevant and important orientations, will cause
changes throughout the system. Newcomb
to
reinforcer in the
pleasant feelings in the person
less attracted to
Attraction
decreases.
true in the case of dislike.
the perceived relevance of reading to the relation-
the
it
law of learning
We
when
more rewards
perception such that he continues to believe
of this section
we viewed
tend to be attracted to a person
our experiences with that person involve
attraction.
his
likes to read.
Chapter 8 when
in
a
is
learning
discussed theories
change the probability that certain behaviors
will be evoked. If a behavior is rewarded, it
in the sys-
He may
when we
ways persuasion can be explained by learnYou may recall from those discussions that reinforcers in the environment
to value reading less,
toward X.
his attitude
attraction
at
ing theory.
visiting her friend
will
looked briefly
the
him to attribute interest in reading
woman. If he finds out that the woman
does not read
We
theory in Chapter 6
created for
to the
which
in
develops. Byrne maintains that attraction
rele-
vance of the object to the relationship
person
is
good or bad. Now,
if
another
associated or paired with the original
has great impact on the system.
reinforcer, that person
tion, if
and evaluation responses. To illustrate
this explanation, Byrne cites an experiment in
which photographs of people were paired with
statements that supported or opposed the sub-
calls
hand
such pressures
reality forces.
are balance forces in the
On
system
is
it
of dynamic tension under
information either will be distorted,
will cause change.
Newcomb’s primary
is that he
of the system of
contribution
interrelated orientations.
Attraction
is,
there-
not an isolated attitude toward another
person.
demand
It is
to
part of a
complex of elements
be viewed
Newcomb shows how
tational
system
is
part
as
a
jects’ attitudes.
tions elicited
The
negative or positive evalua-
by the statements “rubbed off” on
the photographs, so that these pictures
elicit
came
to
similar evaluations.
any given encounter with another
person will take place in a context of numerous
The various stimuli associated with the
encounter will have positive and negative reinstimuli.
forcing qualities.
the individual’s orien-
weighed
of larger collective sys-
his associate
terms of its strength.
the presence of a
stimuli.
G. L. Clore,
in
Let us return to our example of the
in
that
ultimate attraction of one
man and
woman in the library. The man will be attracted
to the woman if his association with her occurs
Byrne’s Reinforcement Approach
The reinforcement approach, notably
The
person to another will be determined more or
less by a simple combination of stimuli, each
that
whole. Further,
tems, in which interpersonal communication
plays a major role.
Donn Byrne and
to elicit similar
In reality
places attraction in the context
fore,
Thus the
in a state
which new
or
the other
system that create
pressure to minimize discrepancies.
comes
affective
of
calls
31.
204
number of rewarding
For example, the fact that they meet in
which is a rewarding stimulus for
the library,
Byrne, Attraction Paradigm.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
him, will contribute to attraction. Perhaps they
will go to a restaurant in which the atmosphere
and food are rewarding. As these positive experiences mount, his attraction increases.
the other hand, if their acquaintance
is
embarrassment. Such consequences follow
is made
more complex when interaction, which necessarily involves more than one person, takes
On
marked
with various negative experiences, dislike
place.
may
In dyadic interaction the behaviors
of the
Each person’s action
on
rewards and costs, and each participant must
value the mutual activity above a particular
occur.
participants
The
of Mehrabian, Newcomb, and
Byrne deal with interpersonal attraction, and
they provide a basis for understanding the
theories
level in order for the relationsip to
Ongoing relationships, however, obmore complex than simple attrac-
One of the most prominent
the actions involved in a
be endogenous or exogenous.
Exogenous consequences are those external to
relationship
explanations
of
relational maintenance is the economic approach, that emphasizes the costs and rewards
of maintaining a relationship. The next section
stemming
from the person’s individual needs and values,
would accrue from the action whether another
person were involved or not. Endogenous factors, however, stem from the unique pairing of
actions of both individuals in interaction. For
theories.
Thibaut and Kelley’s Theory of Exchange
John Thibaut and Harold Kelley argue that
example, in studying
of the value of the consequences 32 The essence
of relationship is interaction, which involves
.
dyadic behavior: One’s behaviors affect the
other person.
you could imagine
If
person
apt to produce,
is
all
of the behaviors
you could
behavior repertoire.
a
define the
When
this book, you might anreward of a high score on the test. If
were an exogenous reward, it would result
whether you studied by yourself or with another person. However, an added reward of
studying with others might be a sense of gratification received if the other person gave you
positive feedback (such as stating that he
learned from you). Since such a reward depends on the established relationship, it is
endogenous.
Endogenous costs may result as well. One’s
behavior may inhibit the performance of the
ticipate the
interpersonal relationships, like other kinds of
behavior, are evaluated by the person in terms
individuals’
may
the relationship. Such consequences,
up perhaps the best known of these
takes
be sustained.
The consequences of
viously are
tion.
are paired.
yields a particular goodness of outcome, based
stimuli that bring people together in relationships.
all
individual actions, but the situation
people
come
together in a relationship, they choose
various of these behaviors as part of their in-
The extent to which a behavior is
valued depends on the relative costs and rewards, or outcomes. Rewards include the plea-
this
other person. In the study group, for example,
teraction.
the failure of one
member
to read the material
ahead of time could slow down the entire
group. This analysis leads to the thesis of
Thibaut and Kelley’s work: “Whatever the nature of the early exchanges between A and B,
sure and gratifications associated with the behavior; costs include such inhibitory factors as
physical or mental effort, anxiety, or perhaps
they will voluntarily continue their association
32. J.
W. Thibaut and H. H. Kelley, The Social Psychology of
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959). For an
only
Groups
but
extension and elaboration of their theory, see H. H. Kelley
andj. W. Thibaut, Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence
(New
York: John Wiley
&
this theory, see John
J. La Gaipa, “Interpersonal Attraction and Social Exchange,” in Theory and Prac-
Interpersonal Attraction, ed. Steve
Academic
experienced outcomes (or inferred
unexperienced outcomes) are found
But what determines adequacy? Here the
two important concepts. The
Sons, 1978). For
commentary on
tice in
if the
as yet
to be adequate .” 33
theorists bring in
comparison level (CL)
Duck (New York:
Press, 1971), pp. 129-64.
33.
205
is
the criterion or standard
Thibaut and Kelley, Social Psychology, pp. 20-21.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
of attractiveness used to judge the group. However, even if the person does not like a group
(the costs are judged too high relative to rewards), association with the group still may be
more desirable than any of the alternatives.
Therefore the second concept to be considered
is
the other person
Norms and
the
the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt),
is the lowest level of outcomes tolerated
CL
Thus
is
without the costs of “unrestrained ad hoc use of
power .” 35 By following norms, a
person does not have to readjust and rethink
each behavior anew, and the result is that overinterpersonal
the
above which the person is satisfied with
is the level of outcome
above which the individual will remain in the
relationship. CL is a measure of attraction;
CLalt is a measure of dependency.
Outcomes vary over time, of course, and
one’s judgment of a relationship also varies depending on the salient outcomes. As the CL
goes up and down, the individual changes
standards of judgment: “In other words, the
person adapts to the presently experienced
level
the relationship. CLalt
levels: after a shift
upward
new
to a
all
downward
the person has multiple roles and
much energy
The person
and
in dealing with the tasks at hand.
one centers on an optimal manner of
handling a task so that rewards can be maximized and costs minimized. However, when
new
the individual repeatedly suffers an
factory
she
endogenous rewards and
from the contingent relations between the behaviors of participants. A number
of endogenous factors affect the outcome of the
interaction. Some of those discussed by Thibaut
and Kelley include power and dependence,
norms and roles, tasks, and frustration and depindicated above,
indicate that
said to exist. In
example,
in
such
a
added to the relation-
Sometimes people are forced to remain in an
undesirable relationship, in which the outcome
of the interaction is below CL (comparison
level) Such a situation may lead to frustration
and deprivation. Under these circumstances the
person may lower the CL so as to better cope
with the outcome. If the individual perceives a
good chance of succeeding, he or she may attack the group powers that have prevented rewards or increased costs. Coalitions may develop; perhaps ultimately the nature of the
group will change.
.
results
from interpersonal dependency. One person has
power over another to the extent that he or she
can manipulate the outcome of the other’s behavior. If the outcome of one’s behavior is contingent on the other’s behavior, a dependency is
troller has fate control
he or
ship.
briefly.
power
unsatis-
a task,
than one person works on such
task, additional costs are
costs result
The authors
outcome from working on
particularly susceptible to social influence.
is
When more
of these
norms
also encounters various costs
Ideally
accepted .” 34
rivation. Let us look at each
must expend
reconciling the various
rewards
level, the disappointment gradually
wears off and the once dreaded outcomes be-
As
role is
involved.
lower
come
A
person’s behavior, thus reducing costs, unless
level, the
shift to a
costs are reduced in the interaction.
of norms applying to a particular person or task. Like norms, roles help organize a
a cluster
once longed for outcomes gradually lose their
attractiveness; after a
dependent on your actions.
a relationship.
behavior adopted by the
which
considering other alternatives.
is
roles also affect the perceived
A norm is a rule of
members (or most of
members) of a group. Norms are functional
because they help to regulate group behavior
outcome of
a relationship the conover the controlled. For
As groups grow
in size, the
complexity of
relationships increases. Basically the
your study arrangements with an-
ciples
by which
a
same prinis judged
dyadic relationship
other person
you may discover that because
you have more grasp of the material you have
power over the other person. The outcome for
(CL and CLalt) are used to judge group relationships. However, in groups of three or more
34.
35.
the possibility always exists that subgroups will
Ibid., p. 98.
206
Ibid., p. 147.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
develop. In making comparisons, the
members
approaches that have been employed. The
theories also illustrate the key weakness of most
theories of interpersonal attraction, that of limited scope. Each theory we have discussed focuses on only one element of attraction, putting
aside all others. Mehrabian’s theory deals with
signs of attraction without explaining the nature of liking or immediacy in relationships.
of a group will consider the relative outcomes
of subgroup possibilities. Whenever they perceive that mutual dependence will be more satisfying in the smaller subgroup, the cohesiveness of the larger group will suffer.
Also, as groups become larger, they bring
increased possibilities for enhancing rewards.
By cooperation and interaction, joint cost cutting may occur. Members can produce rewards
for each other, and they can enhance social
facilitation of enjoyment. A number of contingent situations
ferent
power
may
each leading to
exist,
Newcomb
all
will lead to joint rewards.
for this kind
of group situation
is
synchroniza-
of efforts. Synchronization of members’
behaviors can be difficult, and the larger the
group the more difficult it becomes. Second, in
a situation of partial correspondence of outcomes,
the members may receive similar outcomes if
they are willing to mesh their efforts. Otherwise, different outcomes may arise. Cooperation is necessary to maximize the outcome for
The
third situation involves low correspon-
At the extreme only one pera favorable outcome; in the less
extreme case some people may achieve an outcome at the expense of others. Queuing is typi-
dence of outcomes.
son can achieve
cal in
such groups, in which persons take turns
receiving the favorable outcome. These three
situations are illustrated
by
problem-solving group, and
a
rowing team,
a
debate team, re-
a
spectively.
The theory of Thibaut and Kelley recognizes
that interactional patterns
likely that each
of these
factors enters into at-
traction and relational maintenance? This
The problem
tion
all.
idea of cognitive bal-
from the
framework of economics. Doesn’t it seem
of
perfect correspondence of outcomes, the joint efforts
of
on the
relational maintenance entirely
a dif-
relationship. First, in a situation
relies
Byrne stresses learning and reinforcement, and Thibaut and Kelley see attraction and
ance.
body
of theory, perhaps more than any other in this
book, illustrates the basic admonition about
theory presented in Chapter 2, that theories are
constructions and abstractions; each focuses on
some aspect of the communication process to
the neglect of other aspects.
Mehrabian’s theory is valuable from the
standpoint of relating attraction, and other variables, to communication behavior. Unlike any
other, his theory shows us how people behave
differently depending on the degree of immediacy, power, and responsiveness present in the
communication situation. By providing a clear
operationalization of communication behaviors, Mehrabian’s theory is heuristic, producing beneficial research ideas.
Unfortunately, Mehrabian’s theory is narrow in scope and fails to provide any explanation of communication patterns. One might
infer that the use of nonimmediate behavior
would reduce
depend on the per-
is
a
attraction, or vice versa, but this
chicken-egg issue that remains unresolved.
for people to the degree that they result in out-
we can question the validity of
Mehrabian’s claim that the three factors of in-
comes more favorable than group members
would expect from other alternative relation-
conclusion
ceived rewards and costs. Groups are functional
In addition
teraction are universal
and cross-cultural. This
flies in the face of much research in
anthropology that indicates that few behaviors
ships.
are universal. If they are universals,
how
Criticism
ders
The
sponsiveness as a universal state
theories in this section are representative of
one won-
significant they are. For example, re-
may
reflect
the several theories of interpersonal attraction.
only certain psychological and anatomical uni-
They
versals that reveal
are chosen to give an idea of the different
207
little
about internal mean-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
ings.
That
people,
all
would express
regardless of culture,
same ways
liking in the
tremely suspect, as Hall has
shown
is
ex-
Chapter
5). As a final challenge to the validity of Mehrabian’s claims, we cannot be sure about the
claimed correlations between immediacy behaviors and actual attraction. Although Mehrabian’s theory
is
parsimonious,
it
(see
may
be overly
simple. Surely additional variables enter into
attraction.
One
variable, for
example, might be
the developmental stage of a relationship. Inti-
macy and
may lead to immediacy
somewhat unconnected with
familiarity
behaviors that are
At the same time people involved
in the early stages of a relationship may not
communicate with the directness characterized
by immediacy, despite extreme attraction for
one another. In short Mehrabian’s ideas are too
actual liking.
simple to adequately explain the complexities of
social
life.
Consistency theories such
as
Newcomb’s
present an intriguing hypothesis, one we examined in some detail in Chapter 8. The assump-
of balance or consistency is appealing beit provides a parsimonious explanation
people change or remain stable. To
inject the notion of coorientation and attraction
into this paradigm makes intuitive sense. Another strength of Newcomb’s theory is that it
involves communication in the process of attraction in a central way. People become aware
of their coorientations and make inferences
about the other’s attitudes through the exchange of messages. According to Newcomb,
messages therefore have a direct effect on the
tion
cause
for
why
cognitive system.
approach, however, has all of
the weaknesses of the consistency theories out-
Chapter
8. It
takes
away any power of
choice on the part of the individual, employing
deterministic explanation. It is also overly simple in
its
claim that the imbalance
tions will
tion
and
ter 8, that
suggest a
more
individual creating one’s
actional role
own
of the
social reinforcers.
Thibaut and Kelley present an appealing
theory of interpersonal attraction and relational
maintenance. This theory is highly explanatory
because
it
presents a rationale for understanding
many
elements of relational behavior. Using a
few basic concepts, Thibaut and Kelley explain
just about any aspect of social behavior. The
criticism is that this theory relies on the assumpof the rational person. Such factors as reinforcement and balance do not seem to enter the
tion
system.
The theory
suggests that people weigh
and rewards in a deliberate and rational
whether to sustain or dissolve a
relationship. This theory relies on game theory
costs
way
to decide
as a base.
(We
detail in the
that people
will discuss game theory in more
next section.) In brief it suggests
make moves
in a relationship,
based
on expected rewards and costs, just as they
would in a game or war. Another criticism of
this
theory
artificial.
is that it is based on research that is
This research, typically done in a lab-
oratory, examines the choices people
make
in
response to different reward and cost con-
Newcomb’s
lined in
Although reinforcers in the environment must have some effect on our feelings
toward other people, suggesting a primary effect between learning and attraction is surely a
simplification of reality. Of all the theories in
this section, this one has least to do with communication, ignoring one of the most central
elements of social life. There is serious doubt as
to whether social behavior is conditioned in the
same ways as is physical behavior. Remember
the ideas of Albert Bandura, presented in Chapindividual.
have great force
in
among
cogni-
changing attrac-
attitude.
tingencies, using points or tokens as
208
out-
We are not at all sure whether social
rewards work in this way. 36 Finally, the theory,
though highly relevant to communication, says
comes.
little
about
it.
Thibaut and Kelley’s ideas could
and in-
easily be related to interaction, messages,
formation, and the time
to
Byrne’s theory also relies completely on determinism. Little active choice is afforded the
game
36.
do
is
right for
so.
La Gaipa, “Interpersonal Attraction.”
someone
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION,
the probable costs of continuing the conflict outthe probable costs of ending the conflict.
weigh
Social Conflict
The
Like most topics in the chap-
conflict.
conflict
ter,
tion, but
rooted in interpersonal interac-
is
also seen in other contexts.
it is
Most
of the material presented here relates directly to
the interpersonal context. Keep in mind,
though, that it can also be applied to the higher
of group and mass communication
levels
as well.
Over
One of
of this chapter covers theories
final section
of social
tion
many
approaches to the study
as in
most theo-
the advantages of Watkins’s defini-
that
is
includes the possibility for
it
conflict
Speech Communication Association commisa conference on communication and
conflict. The theoretical approaches included in
sioned
section are guided
we
sion.
First,
view.
Then we move
and
ational definition 38
:
finally to a
Conflict requires at least
two
parties capable
Conflicts arise due to the existence of a mutually
Each party
a
game
in a conflict has four possible types
of
action alternatives:
to obtain the mutually desired objective,
end the
be conceptualized.
Game theory was developed many
Von Neumann and Morgenstern
study economic behavior 40 Since
to
c.
to invoke sanctions against the opponent,
to
game theory
years ago
conflict,
communicate something
by
as a tool to
inception
its
has provided a base for popular
research tools in several disciplines.
b.
d.
model
These three approaches provide a fair
representation of the ways communication in
.
a.
theoretic
to a transactional
Game Theory
desired but mutually unobtainable objective.
3.
about
of
invoking sanctions on each other.
2.
talk
theory based on persuasion in
conflict.
conflict can
1.
that
com-
.
munication and conflict are chosen for discus-
Charles Watkins offers an analysis of the essenconditions of conflict, which form an oper-
by the work of
conference 39 Three major approaches to
retical areas, this work is not altogether consistent 37 As a result defining conflict is difficult.
.
com-
many approaches to
have neglected the communication aspect. In part to deal with this anomaly, the
munication. Ironically,
this
the years
of conflict have emerged, and
tial
AND CONFLICT
For re-
searchers studying the processes of decision
making or choice making and goal competition
to the opponent.
game theory provides a possiAs a result it has been used exten-
or cooperation,
4.
Parties in conflict
may have
different value or
perceptual systems.
Each party has resources which may be increased
or diminished by implementation of action alter5.
natives.
6.
Conflict terminates only
satisfied that
it
has
“won”
when
each party is
or “lost” or believes that
ble paradigm.
sively to study conflict.
Game theory includes several kinds of
games. Two-person games, which are particularly useful in conflict research, consist of
where two players take
making choices that lead to payoffs. In all
games the rational decision-making process is
structured situations
turns
A number
of reviews are available. An excellent
analysis of the diverse assumptions of conflict theories can
be found in Leonard Hawes and David Smith, “A Critique
of Assumptions Underlying the Study of Communication
37.
in Conflict,” Quarterly Journal of Speech
stressed.
59 (1973): 423-35.
A
key question
39. Gerald Miller
Thomas Steinfatt, “Communication and Conflict:
of New Material,” Human Communication Re1 (1974): 81—89; and David Johnson, “Communicaand the Inducement of Cooperative Behavior in
Conflicts: A Critical Review,” Speech Monographs 41 (1974):
is
how
and Herbert Simons,
See also
Communication
A Review
Prentice-Hall, 1974).
search
40. J.
in
Conflict
players behave
eds., Perspectives on
(Englewood
Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton,
Unviersity Press, 1944).
64-78.
Charles Watkins, “An Analytic
Speech Monographs 41 (1974): 1-5.
38.
also available.
Model of
Theory:
Conflict,”
Books,
209
Cliffs,
Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, The
tion
A
See,
Numerous
for example,
Morton Davis, Game
Non-technical Introduction
1970).
N.J.:
Theory of
N.J.: Princeton
secondary sources are
(New
York: Basic
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
in order to gain
rewards or goals. Types of
games vary in several ways, including the
amount of information provided to players, the
amount of communication permitted between
prison for five years. If neither confesses, both
go to prison for one year on a lesser charge.
Figure 10.4 illustrates the choices. With no
will
how game theory is useful in studying conflicts:
“Game theory is concerned with how to win a
game, with strategies of move sequences that
communication between players, they will not
know the choice of the other. Each is in a dilemma on whether to trust and cooperate by
remaining silent or to compete by confessing. If
both are willing to cooperate by not confessing,
the long-term payoff is maximized for both.
But if one does not behave cooperatively, the
maximize the
other cannot cooperate.
players, and the extent
of cooperation versus
competitive incentive built into the payoff matrix.
Thomas
minimize
Steinfatt
and Gerald Miller show
player’s chance to
chance for
his
loss.
gain and
Because
ingredient in conflict situations
is
a
most players
major
gain something one does not possess and to
hold onto that which one does possess, certain
games are analogous to particular conflict situations and
game theory
serves as a
model
to
predict the behavior of persons in such conflict
attempting to gain those ends.” 41
Since game theory stresses rational decision
situations
making,
games
a
it
moves
the
most commonly used games
Dilemma. 42 This simple game
game
Steinfatt
and Miller reviewed the
literature in
which games were used to investigate the process of communication in conflict. Their
generalizations are a step toward a game theoretic analysis. Using games as an analogue,
Steinfatt and Miller list three ways in which
come to assess each other’s
The first way is to observe the oppomoves over several trials. In games such
as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, subjects play
through a number of trials of the game. Typia player will observe the opponent’s
will thereby judge one’s own subsequent moves. The second way of assessing
strategy is to observe the total conflict situation.
In so doing a player makes inferences from the
cally
moves and
is
is
extremely useful because it illustrates a number
of salient features of games in general. Also, it is
interesting as a mixed-motive
several trials
nent’s
punishments based on the moves
of others. The object is to maximize gains and
minimize losses.
One of
Over
ultimately toward the
strategies.
(choices) that lead
to rewards or
the Prisoner’s
move
parties in conflict
involves games of strategy. In such
player makes
will
noncooperative strategy.
the desire to
since players
may choose between
cooperating or competand genuine reasons are present for choosing either. Here is the situation: Two people are
ing,
SUSPECT A
Confess
Silent
arrested for a crime. After being separated, each
must choose whether
fesses
one conand the other does not, the confessor will
free, and this person’s testito confess. If
be allowed to go
mony
will send the other to prison for
years.
If
twenty
both confess, both will be sent to
41. Thomas Steinfatt and Gerald Miller, “Communication
Game Theoretic Models of Conflict,” in Perspectives on
Communication in Conflicts ed. Gerald Miller and Herbert
in
Simons (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp.
14-75.
42.
This
game
is
Game Theory, pp.
is an excellent source of real-world
types of games.
explained in Davis,
93-107. This
book
analogues for
many
Figure 10.4. Prisoner’s dilemma.
210
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION, AND CONFLICT
game
the message
is
would study the matrix and try to
what the opponent’s strategy is likely
communicate.
The
situation to the opponent’s strategy. In a
the player
figure out
that
third aspect of the
The third approach is
The authors point out:
makes
it
conflict at the
stating
how
direct
communication.
communica-
“Ideally,
possible to conduct the entire
symbolic
level,
tion
with each player
moves of the
other.
.
.
is
the behavior of the person in the
Thus people
in conflict are in a situation that
has the potential of providing mutually exclu-
.
By communicating
their own tendencies
Besides avoiding the hostility, disruption, and
sive payoffs.
subsequent losses resulting from actual moves,
negotiations allow the parties to move away
chauvinistically. In fact studies
from
this
a
may
winner-take-all position toward a solu-
tion that provides
one .” 43
some rewards
Steinfatt
and Miller developed
word ‘communication’
what tends
to
Pregame
to happen.
behave
discus-
occurs
more open
the fuller the communication, the
a three-point
the-ehannels, and the greater the resultant coop-
conflict,
eration.
in
as
Now
“We em-
reflected in the following definition:
ploy the
is
the parties
have shown that
sions increase cooperation.
Dilemma
game could communicate and agree to cooperate, both would receive lesser sentences.
model of communication
reduce
The greatest effect
when communication exists from the
beginning of the conflict. Studies also show that
for every-
If the players in the Prisoner’s
is
situation.
he would respond to the stated,
rather than the actual,
model
result in nonsitua-
We
have already seen that
symbolic exchanges do not affect the payoff
matrix per se. What is affected by communicational consequences.
to be.
tion
said to constitute an attempt to
communication may
that
we
have examined the basic game
communication and
theoretic concepts of
to indicate the
we
use of mutually understood symbolic behavior
conflict,
such that the probability of engaging in a particular behavior (making a given move) is al-
explain the process of communication in real
tered via the exchange
of symbolic move
turn to
conflict situations.
two
theories that attempt to
The
first is
David Morten-
sen’s transactional paradigm 45
se-
.
quences which carry no necessary consequences
for the situation (the
The
formal game matrix ).” 44
point in this definition
first
communication
is
is
Transactional Approach
that the
Unlike the reductionistic, behavioristic approach of game theory, the transactional
paradigm explains situations and processes as
45.
they emerge in the holistic experience of the
symbolic in the sense that the
stated intention does not carry the actual conse-
quence of the real move. Although real moves
might “communicate” in the broader sense, it is
person.
necessary to limit the definition here to distin-
guish between a real
player receives and understands a message
from the
that
other, this will
43.
Steinfatt
els,” pp.
44.
change
moves
in probability
in
Do we
areas dis-
conceive of
the person as primarily responding to the
as
world
presented or defining and acting on the
is
now
apparent in the
conflict literature as well.
will take
Game
does not occur,
and Miller, “Communication
this philosophical
communication
world? This division
change the likelihood
“rational” competitive
place. If a
have encountered
cussed earlier in this book.
quences and symbolic moves. Second, communication changes the probability of moves. If
a
We
division in several
move with payoff conse-
theory presents conflict-inducing situ-
ations to subjects in order to observe their re-
Game Mod-
sponses. In ongoing
life,
according to Morten-
32-33.
Ibid., p. 37.
This definition
is
based on the
C. David Mortensen, “A Transactional Paradigm of
Verbalized Social Conflict,” in Perspectives on Communication
in Conflict, ed. Miller and Simons (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
work of T.
C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1960). Schelling was one of the first to
deal with communication in the game theoretic perspective.
Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp. 90-124.
211
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
sen, conflicts are not presented to people but
increases in the person to perceive and verbalize
emerge out of situations
conflict.
as defined by participants:
For example, suppose that two people be-
Conflicts are not objective situations; conflicts
when the participants believe they
A number of assumptions lie behind
exist
come
exist.
this
proach. First, the participants in a conflict ac-
communication
define the
tively
chair,
conflict.
as
interested in an antique chair at a sale.
As
each becomes aware of the other’s interest in the
ap-
move toward
both
tation.
The
increased social orien-
potential buyers shift
from
a per-
Second, the conflict emerges naturally from the
sonal orientation to an awareness of each other
communication between the
and the other’s desire for the chair. At this point
the parties may become aware of the conflict
participants.
Third, the communicators are relatively free to
define their
own
rules.
What, then, are the dimensions that give rise
of conflict? Mortensen names
five.
The
first is
individual disposition. People
who
They become
the fact that conflict
may
nication
is
the
it
more
conflict
salient
commu-
likely to occur.
Mortensen believes
typically antici-
sensitive to
arise in the situation.
becomes, and
this possibility
vary in the degree to which they expect conflict.
At one extreme are people
potential of the sale.
The more they think about
to the definition
that conflict
comunica-
pate conflict regardless of the social situation.
tion behaviors can be described in terms of
This form of disposition
three dimensions: intensity, affect, and orien-
generalized.
who
is
situation-free
At the other extreme
or
are individuals
tational behaviors. Intensity
These individuals do not begin to define
conflict until particular situational circumstances call for it.
The second dimension is orientation. Here
Mortensen relies primarily on the work of
Newcomb, summarized in the previous section
of this chapter. In short, as one’s orientations
become
signs
The
last
third factor
is
stressing
patibilities
their perceptions
comparative, evaluative,
accusatory,
three dimensions of conflict are in-
how
these eight behavioral statements relate to
the three dimensions described above.
fre-
1
.
Pressures to verbalize inner conflict increase with
shifts
(a)
from generalized to highly differentiated
from intrapersonal to social
(c) from low-salient to
other person, the greater the anticipation of
conflict-laden cues, (b)
conflict.
objects of orientation, and
this theory, these
dimensions
high-salient conflict-laden cues.
give rise to conflict communication.
Of particu-
2.
According to
concern
in the
The higher the level of verbal conflict, the greater
the frequency of verbalization, the shorter the dura-
experience of the person are
tion, the greater the
perceived shifts from generalized to situation-
bound
conflict
amplitude and
rate,
and the
less
the level of fluency.
from intrapersonal to social orienand from low to high occurrence of
cues. As such changes occur, pressure
states,
tations,
disjunc-
and polarized .” 46
Mortensen summarizes the major propositions of this approach as follows. You can see
tive,
quent and compressed in time a person experiences or thinks about coorientation with an-
lar
is af-
orientation. Partic-
comparisons and incombetween their direct orientations and
of the other’s orientations. As
Mortensen expresses it, “Most of the claims are
tations,
tertwined. These include time, frequency, and
more
The second dimension
people in conflict become more
The
ipants in conflict tend to verbalize their orien-
likely to arise.
salience or intensity. Basically, the
intensity.
emotional.
one’s orientations toward objects and other
more
of
fect. In short,
person will experience conflict becomes greater.
As a person becomes more and more aware of
is
the strength or
behaviors increase in
increasingly social, the chance that the
people, conflict
is
potency of the behavior. As conflict escalates,
rate, loudness, and other
possess a completely situation-bound dispo-
sition.
212
3.
46.
The higher
Ibid., p. 119.
the level of verbal conflict, the
more
.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION,
variable and less synchronized the distribution of
verbal acts becomes.
4.
The higher
the level of verbal conflict, the greater
by
the variability of speech acts, the asymmetricality of
reaction times, and the dysfunctionality of overt
changes between decoding and encoding).
the degree of verbal disequilibrium (as measured
5.
Changes
shifts in
in verbal intensity lead to
corresponding
.
4.
The higher
the level of verbal conflict, the greater
primary affects, looking
behavior, and dissynchronization between shows of
affect and intensity.
8.
The higher the level of verbal conflict, the more
become the (a) shows of social comparison,
frequent
(b)
(c) mentions of
and noncommitment (with corresponding
polarized social disjunctions, and
rejection
decreases in expressions of agreement). 47
.
we
The
as
from
is
neither a
rhetoric serves
serves rhetoric. 49
last
it
a particular action.
known
as threats
Simons
calls these
commonly
the carrot and the stick;
they are
and promises. Persuasion
tradi-
been defined as a different strategy
which genuine, voluntary choice is extended
tionally has
in
is most
on information and
to the other party. Persuasive influence
often conceived as relying
argumentation.
While
this three-fold distinction
may
be ap-
propriate for various other communication
uations,
conflict.
sit-
Simons believes it is inappropriate for
As he says: “I shall argue here that in
conflict situations, persuasion,
not so
much
broadly defined,
an alternative to the power of
it is
an instru-
ment of that power, an accompaniment to that
power, or a consequence of that power .” 50
and artifacts constitute potential or
Thus, even physical acts such as
riots, bombings, and political payoffs may have
symbolic meaning, apart from whatever direct imacts
Conflict occurs
when
incompatible that
have.
Ibid., p. 121.
Simons, “The Carrot and Stick as Handmaidens of Persuasion in Conflict Situations,” in Perspectives
in Conflict, ed. Miller and Simons (En172—205.
213
a
the parties’ interests are so
struggle results.
“power serves
power .” 51 How is
In such
situations
rhetoric and rhetoric
serves
this so?
48. Herbert
on Communication
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp.
Repeatedly
confrontational
their contexts.
assumption is particularly important
reflects Simons’s major thesis. In
of influence
strategies are used together and cannot be separated from one another. Traditionally, however, three types of influence are distinguished.
Inducements are promised rewards used to bait
one’s counterpart into doing what is desired.
Constraint or coercion is used to force an oppo-
actual messages.
glewood
such
constraints and inducements as
may
dimen-
conflict situations the various types
is
47.
acts
sense apart
Influence in mixed-motive conflicts
in that
sumptions:
pact they
little
power and power
.
human
their social contexts.
have seen that
made
nent into
All
potential or ac-
a rhetorical
these social conflicts, once again,
Persuasion and Conflict
Herbert Simons has presented an analysis that
adds even greater depth to our understanding of
conflict 48 Simons believes that communication
in conflict situations is marked by attempts to
influence. While Mortensen explains the conditions and behaviors of conflict, Simons explores
the strategies of influence typically used.
Simons’s analysis includes interpersonal
conflict, and it extends to the levels of intergroup and institutional conflict as well.
Behind Simons’s theory lie four basic as-
1
is
matter of the raw imposition of power nor of a
friendly meeting of minds; instead, it is an inextricably intertwined combination of persuasive arguments backed up by constraints and inducements. In
The higher
will be the variability in
.
protests
affect display will shift
7.
Thus, there
behaviors.
human
on meaning from
by characteristic levels of language intensity and the structure of the claims expressed by the conflict agents.
the level of verbal conflict, the more
from shows of pleasantness,
and low activation to those of unpleasantness, attention, and higher activation.
all
Persuasive messages in social conflicts always take
3.
perceptual and substantive indicants of social
rejection,
communicated messages have
tual suasive effects.
sion to
conflict as manifested
6.
All
2.
AND CONFLICT
49.
Ibid., p. 200.
50.
Ibid., p. 177.
51.
Ibid., p. 178.
Simons
for-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
wards two basic arguments. First, apparent acts
of coercion or inducement must be supported
by persuasion. At least, the receiver must be
Another advantage of these theories is that
each makes communication a central concept.
This treatment is not universally the case in
persuaded that the sender can and will institute
sanctions. Second, apparent acts of persuasion
are supported by an underlying power to con-
theories of conflict. As a product of the speech
communication field, these theories stress the
importance of communication as a precursor
strain or induce. Influence in conflict situations
to, aspect of,
a two-sided coin. Persuasion supports power,
and power supports persuasion. In practice the
is
coin cannot be
split.
Simons discusses a number of ways in which
power and persuasion interact. An agent using
coercion or inducement must establish one’s
own credibility; one must persuade the recipient that he or she has enough power to carry
out the stated promise or threat and is willing to
do so. On the other hand, coercion and in-
ducement may be necessary
or consequence of conflict. The
theoretic approach, as modified by Steinand Miller, points out the role that communication can take in modifying the moves
people make in conflict games. The trans-
game
fatt
approach of Mortensen indicates that
through communication
Simons’s influence ap-
actional
conflict itself is defined
among
participants.
proach states that conflict inherently involves
attempts to influence through communication.
We have discussed the game theory approach
terms of relational maintenance. The advan-
to gain the authority or ethos necessary to persuade effec-
in
tively. Also, the
conflict
nents, or create attitude change through disso-
of conflict, the relation of conflict to decision making, and the effects of communication
on conflict-producing or conflict-ameliorating
ends or consequences of power
and of persuasion are often mutually supportive. Each may create obligations, pacify oppo-
nance reduction.
A
final area
of overlap occurs
when
potential persuaders use coercive and re-
ward
influence to
“buy” valuable communica-
tion resources. For example, effective persuasion often requires money, access to decision
centers, control
of media, and other
factors.
tage of this approach to
is
that
communication and
helps us conceptualize the na-
it
ture
The approach’s disadvantage is that it
does not explain the process and behaviors of
choices.
communication
in
conflict.
As
Steinfatt
and
Miller state in their conclusion: “In the daily
economic, and social conflicts we all
mutually advantageous solutions are sel-
political,
face,
dom
Criticism
Each approach summarized
in this section
adds
a different slant to our understanding of communication in conflict. The game theoretic approach is structural, outlining the parameters of
conflict and the nature of decision-making con-
tingencies
among
conflict
transactional approach
is
participants.
tactical, stressing
The
How
pends
model is strategic in that it stresscomplex interrelationships among the
strategies of influence occurring in conflict. As
es
is
what outare seeking is not this simplified.
people behave in real social conflict dein part
on
their self-concept,
motives,
influence
and Miller, “Communication,” p. 70. For an
of game theory in communicaBostrom, “Game Theory in
Communication Research,” Journal of Communication 18
(1968): 369-88; and Thomas Beisecker, “Game Theory in
Communication Research: A Rejoinder and a Reorientation,” Journal of Communication 20 (1970); 107-20.
52.
the
often the case in the
we come
by
tual social life establishing exactly
comes people
the
dimensions that give rise to conflict and the
nature of conflict communication behaviors.
The
this sharply defined, and in seeking an
communication serves a
myriad of cognitive and affective functions .” 52
As we have seen, game theory relies on the
assumption that people are always rational in
making decisions, that they always want to
maximize positive outcomes. However, in ac-
acceptable solution,
communication realm,
to understand the
phenomenon
Steinfatt
excellent debate on the value
tion research, see Robert
better
a multitheoretical view.
214
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
II:
mental health, individual life goals, and an array
of other complex factors. Also, as indicated
before,
game theory
relies
on
in
sion in conflict consists of coercion, sanctions,
and argumentation. Unfortunately,
rather artificial
laboratory research, since analysis of actual
moves
the natural setting
is
is
just a beginning.
of persuasion
life
extremely
It
this
theory
introduces us to the idea
in conflict, but
it
does not develop
any detail. It is hoped
communication scholars will move into
and continue the analysis of communication and conflict through research and theory
specific propositions in
difficult.
The
AND CONFLICT
THEORIES OF DISCLOSURE, ATTRACTION,
that
view is an exceptionally
fine approach to conflict and communication. It
is actional in orientation and avoids universalist
definitions of conflict. However, this approach
stems from an experiential, phenomenological
orientation to reality, which many communication scholars avoid. The criticism of the transactional approach is that in its holism, analysis of variables is difficult. This approach suffers some of the problems of system theory
as covered in Chapter 3 and of experiential
theories of meaning as explained in Chapter 6.
transactional
this area
building.
What Do We Know about Factors of
Interpersonal Communication
We
are considering theories of interpersonal
communication in three parts. The first group
of theories, related most directly to relationship, was presented in the last chapter. The
present chapter deals with theories related to
Transactional theories provide an excellent gen-
disclosure and understanding, attraction and re-
view of processes, but they keep understanding of actual variable relationships out of
touch. Mortensen presents some propositions
in his theory. These are presented in the form of
lational maintenance,
lawlike statements, yet as laws they are incon-
chapter present an interesting and important
with the basic assumptions of the theory
that individuals vary in the degree to which
body of knowledge about interpersonal communication. We know from these theories that
one of the goals of interpersonal communication is understanding. Understanding is
achieved by assimilating information about
eral
sistent
they define conflict and that they are relatively
free to
choose the rules by which conflict
is
expressed. This inconsistency points out the
problem of the transactional approach in
making propositional statements about events
basic
that are valid in
The major
all
have summarized in
this
others and disclosing information about one-
The nature of one’s disclosures to others
and the receptivity of people to one’s disclo-
self.
sures appear to be strongly related to individual
that
it
a great deal
of communica-
To
many noncommuni-
tion designed to influence other people.
dimension,
cation theories do,
occurs in real
we
growth and personal adjustment. Disclosure,
however, to be effective, must be adapted to the
situation in which it occurs. The amount and
kind of disclosure that occurs between people
depends in part on the stage of the relationship
and the nature of trust between the participants.
marked by
this
theories
recognizes that conflict typi-
is
cally
remove
The
strength of Simons’s strategy ap-
proach
is
situations.
and conflict. In the next
we will cover theories related to groups
and organizations.
chapter
life.
is
as
to eviscerate conflict as
(Game theory
is
weak
it
in this
way, but Mortensen’s transactional approach
recognizes the importance of communication in
the conflict situation.) Simons’s approach actually centers on this dynamic. Another strength
of Simons’s theory is its recognition that types
of influence cannot be realistically separated
from one another in a conflict situation. Persua-
215
Rhetorical sensitivity
is
the ability of the indi-
vidual to judge the situation and to
sures in a
way
make
disclo-
that others will understand
and
accept. This quality also involves a recognition
of many selves; how
situation depends on the
that an individual consists
one communicates
self that
is
in a
appropriate for that situation.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Attraction
is
related to the establishment
and
maintenance of relationships. Attraction is a
function of a variety of factors, including at
least cognitive balance, reinforcement, and
cost-reward outcomes. Attraction in
ship
is
outcomes of
and
alternative relation-
ships.
The
chapter
Interpersonal communication
is
element of relationships in
social conflict.
this
Communication is a
Conflict is marked by
of conflict.
of communication, and commubetween parties in a conflict situation
can affect the outcome. Although conflict
central aspect
is
sense of
the basis for
other contexts of communication.
damental to group and organizational
all
nication; even
final
a
cooperation rather than competition.
a relation-
relative to the partners’ aspirations
the perceived
communication tends to be emotional and to
involve attempts to influence, it can bring about
mutually desirable solutions and
part
on interpersonal
chapters
we
It is
contacts.
In
communication
in turn. In the
of
we
commu-
next chapter
certain kinds
will discuss several theories related to
nication in formal or structured situations
group and the organization.
in
upcoming
will consider these higher levels
nication
216
fun-
commu-
mass communication depends
— the
—
CHAPTER
n
Interpersonal communication includes dyadic,
group, and organizational settings. In the
two
chapters
we
last
discussed theories related di-
Interpersonal Contexts
Theories of Groups
and Organizations
III:
and research related to small group communication
is
scattered
and varied. Critics have singled
out small group communication as
2
a
confusing
rectly to dyadic interaction. This chapter pre-
area of study
sents theories that apply particularly well to
small group processes have emerged over the
group and organizational settings. Remember,
however, that the levels of communication
years. In this chapter
dyadic, group, organizational, and mass
—
are
not discrete categories. Rather, they are
a
most
the
.
Yet several good theories of
interesting
we
and
some of
There can
will look at
insightful.
be no doubt that the study of small group
communication is important. For one thing the
hierarchy in which each higher level includes
small group
apsects of the lower levels. Therefore organiza-
Clovis Shepherd points out, the group
communication includes many of the
elements of group communication, and group
1.
communication involves dyadic interaction as a
essential
foundation.
groups with which they
tional
is
a
mary source of
their
crucial part
of
social
As
society.
is
mechanism of socialization and
“an
a pri-
order.” People derive
from the
As a result
values and attitudes largely
identify.
“the small group serves an important mediating
function between the individual and the larger
society .” 3 In essential agreement with
Shepherd, Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zan-
Theories of Group Communication
In the last
two
chapters
we
looked
at a
number
der outline four basic assumptions of groups:
of the theories related to face-to-face interaction. One important setting for interpersonal
communication is the small group. A number
of contemporary source books on small groups
reflect the breadth of work in this area 1 Theory
1.
Groups
2.
Groups mobilize powerful
fects
.
3.
and ubiquitous.
.
.
.
.
.
ef-
.
Groups may produce both good and bad conse-
quences.
See, for example, Joseph E. McGrath and Irwin
Altman, Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique of the
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966); Bernard L. Hinton and H. Joseph Reitz, eds., Groups and Organizations (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1971); A. Paul Hare,
Edgar F. Borgatta, and Robert Bales, eds.. Small Groups:
Studies in Social Interaction (New York: Knopf, 1966); Lawrence Rosenfeld, Human Interaction in the Small Group Setting
(Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1973); Marvin E.
Shaw, Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981); Clovis R.
Shepherd, Small Groups: Some Sociological Perspectives (San
Francisco: Chandler, 1964); Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin
Zander, eds., Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (New
York: Harper & Row, 1968); Robert S. Cathcart and Larry
A. Samover, eds. Small Group Communication: A Reader
(Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1974).
are inevitable
forces that produce
of utmost importance to individuals.
.
.
.
McGrath and Altman, Small Group
Ernest G. Bormann, “The Paradox and Promise
of Small Group Research,” Speech Monographs 37 (1970):
211—17; C. David Mortensen, “The Status of Small Group
Research,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 56 (1970): 304—9; Carl
E. Larson, “Speech Communication Research on Small
Groups,” Speech Teacher 20 (1971): 89-107. A number of
scholars have responded to this criticism by attempting to
provide focus. See, for example, B. Aubrey Fisher and
Leonard Hawes, “An Interact System Model: Generating a
Grounded Theory of Small Groups,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 57 (1971): 444-53; Dennis Couran, “Group Communication: Perspectives and Priorities for Future Re2.
Field
See, for example,
Research-,
search,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59 (1973): 22-29.
3.
217
Shepherd, Small Groups,
p.
1.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
4.
A
correct understanding of
tainable
from
group dynamics (ob-
research) permits the possibility that
desirable consequences
ately enhanced.
Shepherd
also uses interaction as the defining
quality of the small
from groups can be deliber-
4
group
7
.
In addition
he pro-
vides four qualifications. First, as an organized
group lies somewhere between the
informality of social relations and the formality
of organizations. Second, as groups increase in
entity the
What, then, distinguishes the group? After
summarizing several other definitions stressing
of groups, Marvin Shaw provides his own interactional definition: “A group
different aspects
teracting with
character tends to change. Groups of
more may appear quite different from
dyads and triads. Third, there seems to be an
upper size limit to the small group. After reach-
that each person influences
ing a certain
each other person.
mal
is
defined as
two or more persons who
are in-
one another in such a manner
and is influenced by
A small group is a group
having twenty or fewer members, although in
most instances we will be concerned with
groups having five or fewer members .” 5 This
definition is a good one for our purposes because it includes a communication as the essential characteristic of the group. Shaw points out
that the most interesting groups are those that
endure for a relatively long period of time, have
a goal or goals, and have a degree of interactheir classical treatment of
group
these authors point out a
number of
charac-
of small groups:
groups tend to establish for-
size,
rules, which characterize organizations.
Fourth, small groups possess purposes or goals,
norms, shared values, and communication patterns.
role structure,
Group Dynamics
Most of what we know about groups and
group communication stems from empirical
re-
search in social psychology. Collectively this
work
First,
dynamics, Cartwright and Zander also stress
the interactional quality of groups. In particular
teristics
four or
is
known
summarized
tional structure.
In
size, their
as
in
group dynamics. This
The next
and the
Lewin
are pre-
section includes a general or-
ganizing model by Harold
Collins,
is
the three following sections.
the seminal ideas of Kurt
sented.
work
Guetzkow and Barry
final section presents a catalog
of hypotheses arising from empirical research.
seems likely, then, that when a set of people constione or more of the following statements will characterize them: (a) they engage in frequent interaction; (b) they define themselves as
members; (c) they are defined by others as belonging
to the group; (d) they share norms concerning matters of common interest; (e) they participate in a
system of interlocking roles; (f) they identify with
one another as a result of having set up the same
It
tutes a group,
model
—
object or ideals in their super-ego; (g) they
group to be rewarding; (h) they pursue promotively interdependent goals; (i) they have a collective perception of their unity; (j) they tend to act in a
unitary manner toward the environment. 6
find the
For Cartwright and Zander groupness is a variable, and the more of the foregoing characteristics that exist,
being
a
the closer the
body comes
to
Foundations: Lewin’s Field Theory. Kurt
be one of the most brilliant figures
contemporary psychology. His theoretical
work have left an
indelible mark upon the development of psychology .” 8 As a social psychologist interested in
the nature of individual and group behavior, he
is responsible for one of the most influential
approaches to the study of behavior. Field
theory is an organic approach that in its holistic
his peers to
in
writings and experimental
is consistent with the systems point
of view. Lewin was also a phenomenologist in
orientation
group.
7.
4.
Lewin
was one of the most prominent psychologists of
our century. Gardner Lindzey and Calvin Hall
have written: “Lewin is considered by many of
Cartwright and Zander, Research and Theory,
5.
Shaw, Group Dynamics,
6.
Cartwright and Zander, Research and Theory,
p. 23.
Shepherd, Small Groups.
8. Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindzey, “Lewin’s Field
Theory,” in Theories of Personality (New York: John Wiley
p. 10.
&
p. 48.
218
Sons, 1970), chap.
6.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
viewed behavior from the perspective of
that he
the person. Lewin’s
work
other reasons as well.
is
He
For example, consider a
important for two
research should delve into the practical affairs of
As a result he is responsible for
research in which practical problems
of groups and organizations are probed. In addition Lewin believed in the overriding value of
theory. Good research must be guided by
theory, and theory must be constantly built up
by research. 9
people’s lives.
pose that she drops
much action
that she cannot reach the
We
work
girl at play.
As
the
moves about among her toys, she will behave in accordance with the tensions arising out
of the need to achieve some goal or goals. Supchild
believed that social
hole so deep
bottom. Her immedi-
a ball into a
behavior will be seen as attempts to solve
ate
the problem. She
may
get a stick or perhaps call
for an adult. After the ball
is
will continue playing, seeking
life
Lewin because of his
group dynamics. Lewin was one of the
The
are interested in
recovered, she
new
goals in the
space.
life
space
is
a
complex, interdependent,
of the field. Third, the person has goals toward
which one moves in the life space. Fourth, the
which the person moves on the
of the tensions of the moment. Another
conceiving this space is as a field of
energy. The forces in the field depend on the
pressures of the environment and the wants of
the person, two aspects that must be viewed as
interacting variables. This approach demands
that behavior be examined holistically; it also
demands that behavior be examined in the here
and now.
We must remember that the individual’s life
space includes groups. Individuals cannot be
separated from the groups with which they
identify. Groups, too, have a kind of life space.
Lewin developed a theory that can be applied to
all kinds of groups ranging from families to
person’s behavior can be explained in terms of
work
in
fluid field in
first in the long line of researchers in this area.
There can be no doubt that he was influential in
shaping much of our thought about the nature
of groups. In this section we first consider Lew-
in’s orientation to the
how
person; then
we
basis
way of
discuss
people relate to groups.
Lewin begins
thought with
his
what
tions about people. First,
study
is
is
five
assump-
important to
the perceptions of the person, or the
individual’s psychological field or
ond, the person
tion in the
at
moment
space. Sec-
occupies a posi-
space that can be best con-
life
ceptualized in
any
life
its
distance
from
the other objects
attempting to reach the goals. Fifth, the
field
also contains barriers to the goals, barriers that
the individual
must
surpass. 10
Lewin’s theory leads us to see the person
in a psychological space, called
life
space.
This
field
is
tive
number of
cially the
the person as a
While
objects that the
individual wishes to approach or avoid, and in
striving for goals, the person encounters vari-
ous barriers.
within the
arising
How the person behaves or moves
life
from the
space
is
governed by
tensions
individual’s needs and wants.
9. For an interesting biography of Lewin, see Alfred Marrow, The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin
(New York: Basic Books, 1969).
10.
ways
in which these forces influence
group member.
group is a set of people, it is more
than the sum of its members. When people join
together in a group, a resulting structure
evolves with its own goals and life space. The
group is an excellent example of a system as
outlined in Chapter 3 of this book. As Lewin
puts it: “A group can be characterized as a
‘dynamical whole’; this means that a change in
the state of any subpart changes the state of any
other subpart. The degree of interdependence
of the subparts of members of the group varies
not an objective
world, but the subjective world of the person.
In this field are a
Lewin studied groups from the perspecof their positive and negative forces, espe-
sions.
moving about
the
groups. His analysis includes large social
groups such as communities or institutions as
The term group dynamics implies that
groups are products of various forces and ten-
well.
These assumptions are summarized by Shepherd, Small
Croups.
219
a
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
all
the
way from loose mass to a compact unit.
among other factors, upon the size,
On
group.
depends,
It
group
is
the other hand, if the influence of the
too weak,
it
will
be
less functional in
organization, and intimacy of the group .” 11 Individuals are members of many groups at one
helping the individual achieve goals in the
which means that a person’s groups are an
important part of the life space. Consequently,
tion with
one’s groups will create tensions in the
As
time,
life
—
life.
This impact has four qual-
group provides stability to the
person’s life. As Lewin states, “The speed and
determination with which a person proceeds,
ities.
First, the
his readiness to fight or to
submit, and other
important characteristics of his behavior depend
upon the firmness of the ground on which he
stands and upon his general security. The group
person belongs to
one of the most important constituents of this ground .” 12 Second, the
group provides the person with a means for
a
achieving valued goals. It is a vehicle for approaching or avoiding objects in the life space.
as part
of the
which he or she belongs. Fourth,
life
space, the person
moves about
within the group; the person aims for various
goals in the group
itself.
enough freedom
and the individual
may
is
constantly adjusting and
The most important
cohesiveness
mutual
attribute
Cohesiveness
interest
is
of groups
is
the degree of
among members.
In a highly
cohesive group, a strong mutual identification
found among members. This quality is what
a group together. Without it the group
Mutual identification is a function
of the degree to which members are mutually
is
keeps
will dissolve.
attracted to certain goals or mutually repulsed
by
certain negative forces.
result
Cohesiveness is a
of the degree to which all members per-
ceive that their goals can be
met within the
group. This does not require that the members
have similar attitudes, but that they are interdependent, that they must rely on one another to
achieve certain mutually desired goals. The
a
group, the more force
it
exerts
on its members. The person is pressured by the
group to conform to the group code. This
theme has been elaborated over the years
throughout small group research and theory.
Lewin is placed first in this chapter because
theory provides an excellent introductory
approach to the study of groups. Field theory
respects the needs of the individual, at the same
time demonstrating how people and groups
his
The group
is influenced by personal
is affected by group stanLewin did not dwell on communi-
needs; the person
dards. While
cation per se, he provides an excellent general
toward group and organizational
cannot begin to understand
in groups without this more
general orientation to the nature of groups and
the group-person relationship.
orientation
behavior.
We
communication
to
pursue goals outside the group, dissatisfaction
will result,
groups
a result of this interaction between person
and group, both personal needs and behavior
and group norms and demands will change.
interact.
While group pressures constrain the individthe person also has some degree of freedom. Group values and norms never coincide
completely with individual needs. Groups seem
to have an optimal level of freedom. If the
ual,
individual does not have
life
the person in face-to-face interac-
more cohesive
is
Third, the person’s values and attitudes are
greatly influenced by the values and norms of
the groups to
Thus
adapting individual needs and group demands.
space
and therefore influence the movement of the
person. Since the life space is fluid, the potency
of a group for a particular person will vary from
moment to moment. For example, when a person is at home, the family group generally
exerts more influence than does the work
group. Such may not be the case when the
person is at work.
At this point we begin to see one of Lewin’s
most important themes the impact of groups
on individual
space.
leave the
Kurt Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on
Group Dynamics (New York: Harper & Row, 1948), p. 94.
11.
12.
A
General Organizing Model.
Most of the work
on group dynamics centers on
Ibid., p. 86.
220
task groups. In
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
most of
fact
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
whenever two or more people join together
the theories in this part of the
chapter deal directly with task groups.
To
a problem, interpersonal obstacles also
Such obstacles include the need to make
one’s ideas clear to others, to deal with conflict
arise.
accomplishment in groups, the integrative
model of Harold Guetzkow and Barry Collins
has been included (Figure 11.1). 13 Although this
model is dated, it is still useful in outlining
general components of the group decisionmaking process. The model may look complicated at
Any
glance, but
first
it is
to
handle
help
guide your thinking about the nature of task
among
participants, to handle individual
ber differences, and so forth.
discussion
members
Thus
in
mem-
any group
will be dealing simultane-
ously with task and interpersonal obstacles.
The
basic distinction
between task work and
interpersonal relations has been an overriding
simple.
confronted with two types
concern in the research and theory on small
of problems: task obstacles and interpersonal
group communication. Both types of behavior
task
obstacles.
group
is
Task obstacles are the
are important in accomplishing the task or in
difficulties pre-
Any analysis of
group problem solving must deal with both
task and interpersonal demands. The outputs of
a group are affected by members’ task and
achieving group productivity.
sented to the group as the problem to be solved.
Group members
lem analyzing
—
lutions,
it,
suggesting possible so-
and weighing alternatives. Such efforts
are task-related
13.
deal directly with the prob-
group behaviors. However,
Barry Collins and Harold Guetzkow,
of Group Processes for Decision
Wiley
& Sons,
Interpersonal and task factors interrelate, and
group productivity results from both. Interpersonal relations can inhibit problem solving as
well as enhance it. The performance of a group
A Social Psychology
Making (New York: John
1964), p. 81.
SOURCE OF PROBLEM
From A
interpersonal efforts.
OUTPUTS
GROUP BEHAVIORS
Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making
by Barry Collins and Harold Guetzkow, John Wiley and
Sons, publisher.
Figure 11.1.
A
REWARDS
simple working model of decision-making groups.
221
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
depends primarily on
members. When
the
and
and resources of
is done
ability to integrate
its
organize the individual
skills
this integration
which the
group solution or product is superior to the
individual work of even the best member. We
effectively, an assembly effect occurs in
will return to this notion
on
syntality
when we
is
later
usually posi-
wards.
On
the other hand, “rewards”
may
Although there
the
consists
are several recognized
framework.
Marvin Shaw has taken a step in
by creating a series of hypotheses
Fortunately,
this direction
about groups. His integration of the research
realso
data
excellent, for it presents a relatively simclear summary of what is known in the
of group dynamics. Because the list of
hypotheses is long and because they are selfexplanatory, they are quoted in the following
box on pages 222-226 without comment:
be negative. In any case outcomes are evaluated
ple
by group members
field
as positive or negative re-
wards, and these in turn affect future task and
interpersonal efforts in the group, as indicated
by the feedback arrows
it
single integrated
rewarding to group members. In addiof conflict and successful
tion the resolution
communication often reap interpersonal
that
group
communication, some of which were presented
in the last two chapters, there are very few
theories of group communication as a whole.
Certainly we have no recent theories that attempt to bring together this research into a
positive or negative.
Successful goal achievement
tively
is
unconnected body of
theories related to certain aspects of
in the chapter.
Group rewards can be
The disadvantage of
group dynamics
in
research.
discuss ideas
and the groupthink hypothesis
Research Findings.
work
largely of a vast, often
in Figure 11.1.
is
and
Small Group Research Hypotheses 14
Hypotheses about Individuals and Groups
1. The mere presence of others increases the
motivation level of a performing individual when
Proximity, contact, and interaction provide an
opportunity for individuals to discover the need
satisfactions that can be attained through affiliation with others.
2.
the individual expects to be evaluated.
2. Group judgments are superior to individual
judgments on tasks that involve a random error.
3.
sonality similarity,
(his
function
similarity, per-
similarity,
racial
of the other person
or her success or failure), and need com-
Groups usually require more time to complete
do individuals working alone, espewhen time is measured in man-minutes.
Individuals desire to affiliate with others
are equal to or greater than
4.
cially
whose abilities
their own.
Groups
a positive
patibility.
a task than
5.
is
economic
similarity, perceived ability
alone.
4.
Interpersonal attraction
of physical attractiveness, attitude
Groups usually produce more and better solutions to problems than do individuals working
3.
learn faster than individuals.
An individual will join a group if he or
she finds the activities of the group attractive or
5.
Group discussion often produces group polarimore risky or
more cautious group decisions than decisions
made by the average group member prior to
6.
zation effects, leading to either
rewarding.
6.
An
individual will join a group if he or she
values the goals of the group.
group discussion.
There exists a need for affiliation which
renders group membership rewarding.
7.
Hypotheses about Group Formation and
Development
1
People join groups in order to satisfy some
An individual will join a group if he or she
perceives it to be instrumental in satisfying needs
outside the group.
8.
individual need.
Shaw, Group Dynamics, pp. 76-80, 114-17,
161-66, 202-9, 256-61, 307-14, 343-45, 383-89.
14.
9.
Group development follows
sistent pattern that involves a
222
a reasonably conperiod of orienta-
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
tion, resolution of conflicts about authority
10.
personal relations, and a productive period.
Coalitions form in situations in which
AND ORGANIZATIONS
THEORIES OF GROUPS
and
plex problems, whereas a centralized network is
most
efficient when the group must solve simple
16.
two
problems.
more persons can achieve greater rewards
through joint action than can either acting alone.
A
or
communication network
centralized
more vulnerable
is
to saturation than a decentralized
network.
Hypotheses about the Physical Environment
of Groups
The
1.
physical aspects of the environment inter-
with attitudes and
group process.
act
beliefs to help
determine
The
3.
which they defend against invasion.
size
of group
.
decreases with increasing group
Individuals and groups typically assume a
proprietary orientation toward certain geographi-
2.
cal areas
Hypotheses about Personal Characteristics of
Group Members
1
The total amount of participation in the group
territories varies
members
The
3.
with the
density of the locale and the interpersonal relationships among group members.
Individuals typically have personal standards
concerning appropriate interpersonal distances for
various interpersonal relationships and activities.
increases with increasing
group
probability that a leader will
creases with increasing size
size.
emerge
in-
of group.
Smaller groups are usually evaluated more positively than larger groups by group members.
4.
4.
Reactions to unwanted approach by others
vary with the personalness of the situation, the
intimacy of the person-other relationship, and the
size.
Differences in relative participation by group
2.
Conformity to
5.
a
unanimous majority
size, at least up
with increasing group
increases
to
some
maximum.
5.
of the person
status
relative to the other.
Unwanted proximity of another person
6.
evokes discomfort and negative feelings which are
revealed by various defensive reactions on the part
of the victim, the person whose space is invaded.
Male and female groups
7.
react differently to
variations in population density.
High density
8.
results in
decrements
in
group
performance under some conditions.
There is a positive relationship between status
and the favorability of spatial position in the
group.
1 1
.
Seating arrangement influences the quality of
A
interaction.
is more likely to emerge in a cencommunication network than in a decen-
tralized
network.
13.
Organizational development occurs more
com-
munication network.
tralized than in centralized
in decen-
communication net-
works.
15.
A
cal
age to
some maximum.
9.
There
is
when
level.
tendency for the group leader to be
members.
Conformity behavior increases with chrono-
logical age to about age 12,
and decreases there-
after.
1
.
in
Women
are less assertive
and
less
competitive
groups than are men.
12.
Women
nication
13.
14.
use eye contact as a form of commu-
more
Women
frequently than men.
more
usually talk
in
groups than
communication network is
group must solve com-
the
223
Females conform to majority opinion more
than males.
15.
There
is
a slight
rior individuals to
tendency for physically supe-
become
Leaders are usually
leaders.
more
intelligent than
non-
leaders.
17.
ally
decentralized
efficient
a
older than other group
16.
Group members have higher morale
most
some maximum
becomes more highly differcomplex with increasing chronologi-
Social interaction
entiated and
leader
rapidly in a centralized than a decentralized
14.
chronological age to
men.
tralized
12.
of group size upon group perfunction of the kind of task that the
Social participation increases with increasing
7.
8.
1
10. Communication patterns in groups are determined, in part, by the seating arrangement in
the group.
effects
formance are a
group must complete.
10.
9.
group
The
6.
The more intelligent group member is usumore active in the group than less intelligent
group members.
18.
The more
intelligent
group member
is
usu-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
more popular than
ally
less
intelligent
group
members.
More
19.
than
20.
intelligent persons are less
less intelligent
The
conforming
persons.
individual
High-cohesive groups are more effective than
low-cohesive groups in achieving their respective
5.
goals.
Members of
6.
who
high-cohesive groups are generthan members of low-cohesive
ally better satisfied
possesses special skills
(abilities, knowledge, information) relative to the
group task usually is more active in the group,
7.
makes more contributions toward task compleand has more influence on the group
achieving group goals than are incompatible
groups.
tion,
groups.
Compatible groups are more
decision.
Members of compatible groups
8.
The authoritarian is autocratic and
ing of others in the group.
21.
demand-
The authoritarian conforms to the majority
opinion more than does the nonauthoritarian.
who
are positively oriented to-
ward other people enhance
satisfied
social interaction, co-
hesiveness, and morale in groups, whereas individuals who are positively oriented toward things
inhibit social interaction, cohesiveness, and
morale.
which enhance their
group effectiveness.
behave in ways
acceptance in the group and
members having
form more
10.
The more dependable the group member, the
more probable it is that he or she will emerge as a
leader and will be successful in helping the group
achieve its goal.
26.
The unconventional group member
The
well-adjusted group
to effective
groups composed of
similar abilities.
of men and women are
by the sex composition of the
interaction styles
affected differently
group.
11.
12.
Sexually heterogeneous groups are
more
homogeneous groups.
Members conform more
than in same-sex groups.
Racial heterogeneity tends to create interper-
sonal tension
which
is
reflected in the feelings
and
behaviors of group members.
14.
Groups whose members
are heterogeneous
with respect to personality profiles perform more
effectively than groups whose members are
homogeneous with
respect to personality profiles.
Hypotheses about Group Structure
1. The perception that organization
inhibits effective
member
ef-
mixed-sex groups
in
inhibits
group functioning.
The anxious group member
group functioning.
28.
29.
The
diverse, relevant abilities per-
effectively than
members having
13.
Ascendant individuals are dominating and
self-assertive in groups and generally facilitate
group functioning.
25.
are better
members of incompatible groups.
fective than sexually
24. Socially sensitive persons
27.
than
Other things being equal, groups composed of
9.
22.
23. Individuals
effective in
goal achievement
is
a
facilitates
determinant of group
structure.
contributes
group functioning.
2.
The formation of group structure is
group members have
to the extent that
facilitated
a
need for
structure.
Hypotheses about Group Composition
3.
1
Individuals contribute differently to the group
product, depending upon the particular other in.
is
4.
Members of high-cohesive groups communi-
with each other to a greater extent than
members of low-cohesive groups.
group develops
needs of the group
that the
influenced by the particular
members.
dividuals in the group.
2.
The kind of structure
is
The kind of structure that the group develops
influenced by the physical environment of the
cate
group.
The pattern and content of interaction are
more positively oriented in high-cohesive than in
5. A high-status group member may deviate
from group norms without being sanctioned if his
or her deviancy contributes to goal attainment.
3.
low-cohesive groups.
6.
High-cohesive groups exert greater influence
over their members than do low-cohesive groups.
4.
224
The high-status person both initiates and remore communications than the low-status
ceives
person.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
AND ORGANIZATIONS
THEORIES OF GROUPS
Communications directed upward in the status
hierarchy have more positive content than communications directed downward.
Hypotheses about Leadership
Role specifications may bias the perceptions
and judgments of the role occupant by others.
than those
7.
9.
role occupant.
10.
11.
Individuals differ in their predisposition to-
who
participate less in the group’s
Possession of task-related abilities and skills
enhances attainment of a position of leadership.
Emergent
authoritarian
The more ambiguous the stimulus
The source of the leader’s authority influences
both the leader’s behavior and the reactions of
other group members.
5.
A groyp member is more likely to conform
group judgment when other members are in
unanimous agreement than when they are not.
related abilities, sociability,
12.
to
Greater conformity occurs in groups with de-
communication networks than in
groups with centralized communication net-
centralized
works.
varies positively with the per-
competence.
The
by taskand motivation to be a
Effective leaders are characterized
leader.
6.
Democratic leadership
results in greater
Leaders tend to behave in a more authoritarian
manner in stressful than in nonstressful situations.
7.
The degree to which the leader is endorsed by
group members depends upon the success of the
group in achieving its goals.
9.
A
task-oriented leader
is
more
effective
of personality,
and
additive within the normal
situational,
tionship-oriented leader is more effective when
the group-task situation is only moderately favor-
Conformity introduces order into the group
process and provides for the coordination of indi-
able or unfavorable to the leader.
vidual behavior.
Hypotheses about Group Task and
Group Goals
16.
Under
certain circumstances, conformity
frees the individual
from the coercive influence of
authority.
Deviation from group norms usually elicits
sanctioning behavior by other group members.
Continued or habitual deviation may lead to rejection by other group members.
18.
1
.
ter
High-power group members are usually
liked than low-power group members.
bet-
2.
The high-power group member
of more
deferential,
is
the target
approval-seeking behavior
similar to
for the group.
Tension systems can be aroused for avoidances
for the group.
Group
success
is
followed by choice of a more
followed by selection of an
difficult task; failure is
easier task.
5.
The high-power person has greater influence
the group than low-power group members.
The high-power group member is more
ways
which the individual holds
than low-power group members.
21.
in
Tension systems can be aroused for goals
which the individual holds
4.
20.
Individuals establish goals for their groups
which influence their behavior
the influence of personal goals.
3.
19.
when
is either very favorable or
very unfavorable for the leader, whereas a rela-
the group-task situation
effects
stimulus variables are
ranges of conformity behavior.
17.
mem-
ber satisfaction than autocratic leadership.
8.
Conformity
ceived competence of the majority relative to
the individual’s perception of his or her own
15.
elected or appointed
4.
situation,
group.
14.
more
leaders tend to behave in a
manner than
leaders.
group norms.
the greater the probability that a group member
will conform to the perceived norms of the
13.
group
of leadership
actively participate in the
likely to attain a position
2.
3.
to
more
activities.
Role conflicts will ordinarily be resolved in
is most important to the
favor of the group that
ward conformity
who
Persons
1.
are
8.
Group members
select relatively
more
difficult
tasks if they learn that their past performance
upon
worse than the average
for
22.
they choose relatively
less difficult tasks if
highly attracted to the group than are low-power
The more power
learn that their past performance
is
is
own;
like their
they
better than the
average of groups like their own.
group members.
23.
groups
a
group member
has, the
greater the probability that he or she will use
6.
The
group
it.
225
greater the group
members’
desire for
success, the greater the preference for tasks
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
perceived to be in the intermediate range of
difficulty; the stronger the desires to avoid group
failure, the greater the
preference for tasks
extremes of the difficulty range.
at
the
16.
Groups composed wholly of persons with de-
7.
achieve success stronger than their desires
to avoid failure more often select tasks in the
intermediate range of difficulty than groups composed wholly of persons whose desires to avoid
sires to
failure
The
18.
Group performance is better when the task is
when it is conjunctive.
The style of leadership that is most effective
of group leaders varies with the
kind of task faced by the group.
19.
varies
20.
quality of
Reaction time decreases with increased task
difficulty.
10.
Group members attempt leadership more
when the task is difficult than when it
frequently
is
1 1
When
formity
is
task difficulty
is
low or moderate, con-
curvilinearly related to the self-esteem
The
13.
The
of group performance,
as
mea-
task.
21.
Goal
clarity
and goal-path
clarity are posi-
motivational characteristics of
group members.
22.
Goal
clarity
and goal-path
clarity are posi-
correlated with the efficiency of
group
quality of
of group products vary
of the group task.
characteristics
difficulty
Interpersonal relations are generally more
positive in cooperative than in competitive sit-
23.
uations.
Homogeneous group goals facilitate effective
group functioning, whereas heterogeneous group
goals hinder effective group functioning.
24.
On difficult tasks,
group performance is facilgroup members can freely
communicate their feelings of satisfaction with
the group’s progress toward goal achievement.
14.
quality
members.
group performance decreases
with increasing task demands.
with the
with task solution multiplicity.
The
sured by time and errors, is negatively correlated
with the cooperation requirements of the group
tively
of the group member.
12.
activity
tively related to
easy.
.
a
The
ing task difficulty.
9.
of group products are
17.
group performance, as measured by time and errors, decreases with increas8.
characteristics
function of the kind of task faced by the group.
disjunctive than
exceed their desires to achieve success.
The
15. The kinds of leadership abilities that are required for effective group action vary with the
type of task.
itated to the extent that
Ironically, the work of Kurt Lewin,
which remains a foundation for contemporary
research on group dynamics, is epistemologically and ontologically different from its
Criticism.
latter-day counterparts. Lewin’s theory
tic,
phenomenological, and
cial
psychological research since
is
fundamental concepts and findings that
remain viable today, but he was instrumental in
motivating social psychology as a field. Hall
and Lindzey have written of him:
holis-
field oriented.
Lewin
tain
So-
for the
Lewin’s theory was one of those that helped to revive
the conception of man as a complex energy field,
motivated by psychological forces, and behaving se-
most
lectively
ratory oriented.
plenished with psychological needs, intentions,
hopes, and aspirations. The robot was transformed
into a living human being. The crass and dreary
materialism of behaviorism was replaced by a more
humanistic picture of man. While “objective” psy-
part has been analytic, scientific, and laboLewin took a systems view of
group life, noting the integrated and interdependent nature of group variables. Most group
researchers today are from the variable-analytic
tradition, in which distinct factors are isolated
for close scrutiny. Therefore these two groups
of theories must be criticized separately.
Lewin is recognized as a giant in the field of
social
psychology.
Not only
did he present cer-
226
and
creatively.
The hollow man was
re-
chology tailored many of its empirical propositions
to be tested on dogs, cats, and rats, Lewin’s theory
on human behavior as expressed in
more or less natural settings. Children at play, adolescents in group activities, workers in factories,
housewives planning meals, these were some of the
led to research
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
natural
life
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
which hypotheses derived
theory were empirically tested 15
situations in
from Lewin’s
field
.
Lewin’s work was just a beginning, and although he made significant contributions to our
AND ORGANIZATIONS
Theories of Group Interaction
Group outcome depends greatly on the nature
of interaction in the group. Theories of group
interaction are especially important in this
book
understanding of groups, most of these were
general orientations and provided little substance about how groups actually operate. For a
greater understanding of the variables of
because of the central concern for communication as the base of group productivity. We will
group dynamics, we must
process analysis.
rely
on more recent
research. 16
doubt, social psychological research on
groups has contributed much to our understanding of group process and problem solving.
The lengthy list of hypotheses by Shaw illusat
a
first,
at
two
glance the tremendous scope and
theories
of group interaction. The
an old standard,
theory,
No
trates
look
is
Bales’s interaction
The second, more
recent
modifies Bale’s notion of interaction
and takes interaction analysis
a different
in
direction.
Interaction
Process Analysis.
One of
prominent small group theories
most
Robert
the
is
Bales’s interaction process analysis. 17 Bales’s
power of much of this research. Unfortunately,
this work is nontheoretical. It consists of a large
number of research findings in search of an
nication per
integrating framework. Consequently, Shaw’s
search as a foundation, Bales has created a un-
list is
extremely unparsimonious. Most of the
relate two or three variables with no
connecting thread. General theories of groups
hypotheses
have the potential of providing parsimony by
reducing the vast array of variables to certain
basic factors and explanatory structures.
Another criticism of social psychological
work
is
that
it
consists largely of laboratory
theory concentrates on interaction or
ified
se.
Using
and well-developed theory of small group
It is centered around the idea that
the
comment.
Bales’s aim, then,
making conclusions about what
needed, and
is
observed.
needed badly in the
small group field, is a kind of triangulation
between the laboratory and the natural setting.
is
it
is
Ironically, research in this area
to
the type of
needs to return
work conducted by Lewin
forty-five years ago.
15.
to explain
Bales explains the value of his system: “Interaction process analysis
tively believes about
What
is
the pattern of responses in the small task group.
common-sense
in
commu-
years of re-
people act and react in groups. As one person
makes a comment, another person responds to
search
condition of the limitations of our research
tools. Observing more than a few variables at a
time is difficult and leads to other kinds of error
many
interaction.
research
on artificial groups. Much more reon natural groups in the field setting is
required. Most group research studies center on
two or three variables, ignoring the holistic nature of group operations. This fault is a natural
his
base,
be confirmed by
perhaps,
is
that
would suspect
it
is built on a very simple
and much that one intuieveryday conversation can
it.
goes
The surprising thing,
much further than one
in revealing
basic attitudes
of
people, their personalities, and their positions in
a
group.” 18
Figure 11.2 illustrates the categories of in-
teraction.
These twelve categories are grouped
into four broader sets, as outlined at the left
of
the figure. In addition the behavior types are
paired according to typical action-response ex-
Each of these pairs implies a particuproblem area for groups, as labeled. The
pectations.
lar
17.
Robert
F.
Bales, Interaction Process Analysis:
A
Method
for the Study of Small Groups (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1950; Personality and Interpersonal Behavior (New
Hall and Lindzey, “Lewin,” pp. 254-55.
16. For criticism of group dynamics, see Shaw, Group
Dynamics, pp. 445-51.
227
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970).
18.
Bales, Personality, p. 95.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
figure also reflects the approximate percentage
of comments
in
each category, according to
gross norms.
The four
of behavior in the model can be
We
two
The
first
in
which
relates
addition to accomplishing a task, the group
third classes can be con-
sidered the task area.
The
section relate to the
problem or
interactions in this
task
of the
lead to certain perceptions
by the other group
members. “One might expect utter chaos with
this relativism
all
Bales has
1.
2.
3.
Attempted
4.
answers
5.
6.
is
of consensus on the way
vidual
and mixed
of definition, but
operating groups there
found that typically the same group will have
different kinds of leaders. The task leader,
who facilitates and coordinates the task-related
comments, directs energy toward getting the
job done. The emergence of the task leadership
role is important in group problem solving.
Positive
8.
9.
Negative
and mixed
10.
actions
12.
11.
group is a function of
These include the extent to
which the individual is seen as striving for success and power (as opposed to devaluation of the
three dimensions.
19.
Ibid., p. 4.
Gives suggestion (5%)
Gives opinion (19%)
Gives information (25%)
Asks for information (5%)
Asks for opinion (3%)
Asks for suggestion (1%)
a
3
1
Disagrees (4%)
Shows tension (5%)
Seems unfriendly (3%)
of communication
of evaluation
of control
of decision
of tension reduction
of reintegration
Figure 11.2. Categories for interaction process analys
228
many
members are perceived and evaluated .” 19
shown how the perception of an indi-
vidual’s position in a
Seems friendly (3%)
Dramatizes (6%)
Agrees (11%)
a = Problems
b = Problems
c = Problems
d = Problems
e = Problems
f = Problems
in
amount
which most indi-
a surprising
in
|
7.
Questions
im-
person’s personality. Role is situational. It depends on the demands of the interpersonal
dynamics of the group, including the expectations of others. The way a person behaves will
group. In investigating leadership, Bales has
two
actions
for
The way a person behaves in a group depends on the role the individual takes and the
must mesh psychologically, a goal that can be
aided or impeded by socioemotional communi-
The second and
works
group, concentrating on
the earlier
and fourth cate-
to the interpersonal relations in the group. In
cation.
in the
interactions in the positive and negative sectors.
positive actions and negative actions,
constitute the socioemotional area,
proved relations
of group
classes
have seen these
theories in this chapter.
gories,
is the emergence of a
socioemotional leader. Usually a second leader
takes this role. This individual
sets
further synthesized into
behavior.
Equally important
i
i
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
self), the
opposed
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
degree of equalitarianism expressed
to individualistic isolationism),
(as
and the
extent to which the individual supports conser-
opposed to rejecting auThese factors are visualized in a
AND ORGANIZATIONS
ual’s position
depends on the quadrant in which
(for example, UPF);
that individual appears
one’s position within the quadrant
vative group beliefs (as
mined by
thority).
sented. Thus, for example, a
shown in Figure
the space are labeled
three-dimensional space, as
11.3.
The axes of
positive-negative,
upward-downward, and
ward-backward. Bales uses these
name
for-
spatial labels to
the various position types in his theory.
Within
be placed
a particular
three-dimensional space, de-
how
the individual’s behavior re-
lates to the factors.
The
UPF
direction of an individ-
various points in the space, depending on the
degree of U, of
P,
and of F. Table
11.1 lists the
behavior types and their value directions. When
all of the group’s members are plotted on the
works can be
seen.
The
and net-
larger the group, the
greater the tendency for subgroups of coalitions
These subgroups consist of individwith similar value dimensions. Obviously,
to develop.
uals
U
229
deter-
could appear
spatial graph, their interrelationships
group any member can
in this
pending on
at
is
the degree of each dimension repre-
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
affinity
exists
close in value
between individuals
who
Not only can we predict the coalitions and
networks of a group from a knowledge of the
distribution of types, but Bales has shown that
are
dimension and direction, while
distant individuals are not connected. Bales describes the typical pattern:
behavior type
that one’s behavior in a
both personality and
how
Type AVE:
Type U:
Type UP:
Type UPF:
Type UF:
Type UNF:
Type UN:
Type UNB:
Type UB:
Type UPB:
Type P:
Type PF:
Type F:
Type NF:
Type N:
Type NB:
Type B:
Type PB:
Type DB:
Type DPF:
Type DF:
Type DNF:
Type DN:
Type DNB:
Type DB:
Type DBP:
Type D:
From
interaction
of interac-
Bales’s theory
group
role.
20.
is determined by
Table 11.2 shows
related to value directions. 21
is
is
valuable in studying small
group communication because
it
stresses interac-
Ibid., p. 47.
21. Ibid., pp. 86-97.
TABLE
roles
related to the nature
initiates
network of all members. There are normally three or four networks in a group of about
twenty-five members, the largest one in the group
ranging from about seven to sixteen members, the
second largest from five to ten members, the third
from three to six members, and the fourth from two
to four members. All groups have had some isolates,
ranging in number from three to five per group. The
isolates are more likely to appear on the thinly populated negative side of the space, but they may appear
in any region. 20
Types of group
is
The interaction that a person
and receives depends in part on his or
her behavior type. Keep in mind at this point
tion in groups.
No self-analytic group so far has shown a completely
integrated
11.1
and value directions
Toward a balanced average of all directions
Toward material success and power
Toward social success
Toward social solidarity and progress
Toward group loyalty and cooperation
Toward autocratic authority
Toward tough-minded assertiveness
Toward rugged individualism and gratification
Toward value-relativism and expression
Toward emotional supportiveness and warmth
Toward equalitarianism
Toward altruistic love
Toward conservative group beliefs
Toward value-determined restraint
Toward individualistic isolationism
Toward rejection of social conformity
Toward rejection of conservative group beliefs
Toward permissive liberalism
Toward trust in the goodness of others
Toward salvation through love
Toward self-knowledge and subjectivity
Toward self-sacrifice for values
Toward rejection of social success
Toward failure and withdrawal
Toward withholding of cooperation
Toward identification with the underprivileged
Toward devaluation of the self
Personality and Interpersonal Behavior, by Robert Freed Bales.
permission of CBS College Publishing.
Copynght
230
© 1970 by Holt. Rinehart and Winston.
Paraphrased by
’
.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
He emphasizes the ways people respond to
one another verbally. We have seen how the
character of interaction is manifest in social
and task comments and in value statements. In
you
—
will see that the
way
sion-making
group research is
the individual’s behavior. Fisher and Hawes
refer to this as the human system model. 22 The
human system approach has yielded a number
of analyses of individual behavior variables.
Many of the findings reported by Shaw, as
summarized in the last section, are based on this
approach. Clearly Bales’s method of analysis,
though it is presented as “interaction” analysis,
is really a human system approach. It focuses on
single acts of individual group participants.
Fisher and Hawes believe that a more sensible approach for the study of group communication is the interact system model, in which the
basic unit of analysis is not an individual act,
but an interact. An interact is the verbal or nonverbal act of one person followed by a reaction
from another. Here the unit for analysis is a
contiguous pair of acts. Fisher and Hawes explore the nature of behavior-response sets. Par-
a
patterns within the group.
Fisher’s Interaction Analysis.
and
B. Aubrey Fisher
have developed
his associates
a theoretical
perspective on group phases and decision
emergence that stresses interaction and uses a
system orientation. Since their theory is
communication-oriented and incorporates
much material of previous theories, we will
study it in some detail. In preview we will look
at the general orientation of the interact system
model. Next, we will discuss Fisher’s scheme
for interaction analysis and the phases of decision emergence.
We
will conclude the section
by recapping
Fisher’s notion
modification.
The
thrust
of
of decision and
this discussion is
22.
TABLE
Relationship
CATEGORY
between
Fisher and
11.2
interaction
Hawes, “An
in
Interact System.”
and type
LOW
HIGH
LOW
INITIATION
INITIATION
RECEPTION
HIGH
RECEPTION
N
P
N
P
Dramatizes
DF
UB
NF
PB
Agrees
NB
DB
PF
B
F
UF
DN
UP
B
F
PF
D
UP
Asks for opinion
U
DN
N
NB
N
Asks for suggestion
UB
DF
B
F
P
N
DB
DPB
UF
P
N
DPB
UNF
UNB
UNF
Seems
friendly
Gives suggestion
Gives opinion
Gives information
Asks for information
Disagrees
Shows
tension
Seems unfriendly
deci-
tasks.
Often the unit of analysis
group develops the phases through which it
passes
depends greatly on the interactional
—
by which groups deal with
the process
tion
the next section
AND ORGANIZATIONS
P
231
UF
UP
DPF
P
DB
DN
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
they have observed that interacts seem
ticularly,
to
be organized over time in
ion.
Three
The
Fisher has concentrated
a hierarchical fash-
first
level involves
These are the
acts observed
interact
categories.
specific classes or types
in
of
inter-
classifies
spond
groups. For example, an as-
serted interpretation
of a proposal might be
studied to determine
into interact phases
1
.
Fisher
they re-
scheme:23
Interpretation
,
how
Favorable toward the decision proposal
Unfavorable toward the decision proposal
f.
u.
they tend to group
ab.
Ambiguous toward the decision proposal,
containing a bivalued (both favorable and
unfavorable) evaluation
an.
Ambiguous toward the decision proposal,
containing a neutral evaluation
the second level of analysis.
study of interact phases reveals the pattern of
development in the group as it progresses toward task accomplishment. The third level of
analysis is cycles. As the group proceeds
through a number of tasks, the phases repeat
2.
Favorable toward the decision proposal
Unfavorable toward the decision proposal
f.
Ambiguous toward the decision proposal,
containing a bivalued (both favorable and
unfavorable) evaluation
ab.
Let’s take a closer look at Fisher’s
interaction analysis.
Substantiation
u.
themselves in cyclical fashion.
method of
Fisher concentrates on
Ambiguous toward
an.
interacts in groups. In other
words, he looks at
of contiguous acts. What his system classifies is an act and its response. Interacts can be
classified on two dimensions, the content dimension and the relationship dimension. This
containing
pairs
conceptualization
tional theories
may
his classification
is
how
The following
a
proposal.
A
statements in terms of
to a decision proposal.
outline
fol-
comment seeking clarification of the
Over the entire discussion the frequency of such interact categories would be
lowed by
on the content dimen-
Following the hypothesis that almost all
in one
sion.
comments in a task group are related
way or another to a decision proposal,
levels are defined.
recall
is
of the relaChapter 9. You
similar to that
summarized
in
that these theorists state that all
communication messages have a content or information dimension and a relationship or
metacommunication dimension. While a person is making a statement, the individual is also
reflecting on the relationship in some way. The
most common scheme for understanding relational messages, and Fisher follows suit here, is
the three-fold analysis of one-up, one-down,
3.
Clarification
4.
Modification
5.
Agreement
6.
a neutral
the decision proposal,
evaluation
Disagreement
Two
Bales’s
differences exist
essential
and Fisher’s theories.
given act
First,
between
Bales classi-
terms of
task or
socioemotional function. Fisher assumes that
fies a
any given
act
strictly in
may
fulfill
its
either or both func-
tions simultaneously. (Actually, Fisher finds
more appropriate
relational
to look at the content
dimensions of
acts,
it
and
although these
may in some ways be close to Bales’s
and socioemotional categories.) Second,
divisions
task
and one-across messages. In interaction analysis
group members would be observed in terms of
Bales classifies only single acts, while Fisher
complementary (for example, one-up,
one-down), symmetrical (for example, one-up,
one-up), and transitional (for example, one-up,
one-across) responses. (You may find it useful at
this point to review relational theory from
Chapter 9.)
will create a matrix with twelve
their
Despite the potential
analysis
of the
tains 144 cells,
observing
a
group, Fisher
rows and
one for each potential type of
interact. In other
23. B.
of an interaction
dimension in groups,
utility
relational
classifies interacts. In
twelve columns, corresponding to the twelve
categories in his system. This matrix thus con-
Aubrey
words the observer
Fisher, Small
1980), p. 117.
232
will clas-
Group Decision Making: Com(New York: McGraw-Hill,
munication and the Group Process
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
sify the first act
mark
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Do we
and the second act, placing a
between the two.
A:
in the appropriate cell
In this
way
character and frequency of act pairs in a group
discussion. Fisher believes this kind of data
how
useful for understanding
how
decisions are made, and
A
The
results.
clude
As an observer you would notice
members argue and attempt to persuade at
Members also tend to form coalitions in the conflict phase. As people group
together according to their common stands on
the issues, polarization grows.
ture
and beginning to express points of
street.
A:
C:
auto-pedestrian accident.
A: First of all, we decide whether it’s a case of liability or negligence.
B: Yeah,
negligence.
A: It’s the same thing. In other words, you all feel
that Roger Adams alone was negligent without the
contributory negligence of Derby
or was it Derby’s fault as much as Adam’s fault
or was it either’s
fault
or was it just plain accident.
C: Guilty or not guilty.
A: It’s not just those two choices, though. We’ve got
.
—
—
three choices.
D: What else can there be, though? I mean.
A: It’s not a criminal action like whether he robbed a
store. It’s just whether he is negligent, both of them
.
are negligent, or whether.
D: Yeah,
I
see.
Aubrey
But there
.
.
are
.
.
still
I
certainly
it.
myself as an example. That doesn’t say that he wasn’t
reasonable.
B:
Then we’re not going to get any place. You have
some criteria. You can’t just say he wasn’t
to give
reasonable and
let it
go
at that
These coalitions tend
26
.
to
klings of cooperation begin to show. People are
less
tenacious in defending their viewpoints.
As
they soften their positions and undergo attitude
change, ambiguity becomes apparent
Comments
are
in their
more equivocal
as
ambiguity functions to mediate the attitude
Fisher,
233
disappear in the
third phase. In the emergence phase the first in-
interaction.
only two verdicts.
wouldn’t do
Do you consider yourself reasonable?
A: I’m not reasonable. I’ll admit it, too. But what
does that have to do with it? I wouldn’t want to use
.
“Decision Emergence: Phases in
Group Decision Making,” Speech Monographs Til (1970):
53—66; Fisher, Decision Making.
24. B.
Observe the na-
following excerpt:
in the
take another person’s word for it.
C: Oh, come on now! There is only one car on the
excerpt from a
mock trial illustrates many
The trial involves an
—
of the interaction
A: The thing to decide is: Was Roger Adams in a
hurry and did he act in such a manner that a reasonable, adult, mature person would?
C. You have to consider him a reasonable, prudent
person. He was waved on by another person who
was going to make the turn, regardless of whether
he was in a hurry or not.
A: I would say that if he is reasonable, he wouldn’t
orientational qualities.
.
The interacts in this phase tend to inmore disagreement and unfavorable
this point.
people grope for direction and interpersonal
.
great deal of
that
and comments are often designed to
test the group. Thus positions expressed are
both qualified and tentative. In this phase
a
a
second phase begin to
and much polarization
evaluation.
high level of agreement characterizes
The following
phase includes
solidify their attitudes,
this stage,
understanding.
conflict
dissent. People in this
involves getting acquainted,
jury deliberation in
how many
compensation ? 25
how
.
view.
all,
uted to this negligence and therefore should receive
is
through phases as
purposes this approach is exciting because it
focuses directly and completely on interpersonal
communication as no other group theory does.
In his theory of decision emergence, Fisher
outlines four phases through which task groups
tend to proceed: orientation, conflict,
emergence, and reinforcement 24 In observing
the distribution of interacts across these phases,
Fisher notes the ways interaction changes as the
group decision formulates and solidifies. The
clarifying,
of
groups function,
groups pass
decisions emerge. For our
orientation phase
money or not?
people here feel that just
give the plaintiff any
First
Roger Adams alone was negligent and that Alfred
Derby, the person who was hit, in no way contrib-
the researcher can actually see the
25. Fisher, Decision Making, p. 298.
26.
Ibid., p. 300.
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
shifts the members are going through. The
number of favorable comments increases until a
group decision begins to emerge. The am-
C: I feel sorry for him, and
but Ijust don’t think I can.
biguity characterizing this phase can be seen in
the following excerpt:
me
A: Let
Derby
ask one
(the plaintiff)
more question. Do you think
was in the crosswalk?
toward his side.
enough to it, though.
As
F:
I
think
it
I
are
going to get
but
And
on an emotion
we
a
.
.
—
drunkard and
shows us
in the
that.
preceding analysis that
changes over time.
is
that
of decision
it
An
important related topic
modification 29 Fisher finds that
groups typically do not introduce a single solution and pursue that solution until all members
agree.
Nor do
they introduce a single proposal
and continue to modify
this in
.
should take into any account
the beginning, either
about
characterize the nature of interaction as
happened close
any situa-
reached. Rarely
ical
is
it
until
consensus
is
parliamentary format the typ-
pattern in small group discussion. Fisher
theorizes
on the
basis
of his group observations
that decision modification
they are important, too,
is
cyclical;
several
proposals are made, each discussed briefly, and
27
.
it
not.
told us at
being
Fisher
it.
have to consider them.
can’t base
don’t think
groups go through phases of development in
their decision-making interaction. These phases
Both of them. You can’t use the
two prime subjects. You have to try and go on the
witnesses. Of course they are witnesses, too, and you
That’s just
I
out,
No. Don’t even mention that.
No. Don’t worry about it.
C: No. 28
tion.
F:
Of course
him
F:
Derby may have his own
mean each would be looking out for
Of course you
You
help
B:
himself. That’s only natural.
D:
B:
D:
C:
I’d like to
agree.
Adams
far as that goes,
story too.
I
what they
D: 1 don’t think so.
C: No, I don’t. 1 don’t think that has too much to do
with it, though.
D: I agree.
C: I know there are some statutes about the crosswalk, but I mean the fact that he was in ... 1 don’t
know. That might be kind of important.
D: He was on the roadway is really the issue.
C: I don’t think it really happened exactly the way
the defendant described it. 1 think he embellished it a
little
D:
.
of them reintroduced at a later time.
Discussion of proposals seems therefore to proceed in spurts of energy. Proposal A will be
introduced and discussed. Suddenly the group
will drop this idea and move to proposal B.
After discussing this, the group may introduce
and discuss other proposals. Then someone will
certain
In the final phase, reinforcement, the
group
decision solidifies and receives reinforcement
from group members. The group
standing behind
its
solution.
unifies,
Comments
are
almost uniformly positive and favorable, and
more
on matters of interpreThe ambiguity that marked the third
interaction occurs
tation.
revive proposal A, perhaps in modified form.
27.
phase tends to disappear.
The following
illustrates the interaction typical
The group finally will settle on a modified plan
that was introduced earlier in the discussion in a
excerpt
of phase four:
different form.
Everybody saw the car coming.
B: Besides that, he said his lights were on.
C: His turn signal was on. It was obvious that he
E:
was coming. That would make
it all
the
more
Why does discussion usually proceed in
such an erratic fashion? Probably because the
interpersonal
easier
to see the car coming.
D: Practically everybody saw that car coming. His
demands of discussion
require
“breaks” from task work. In effect the attention
a group is short because of the intense
nature of group work. Such an explanation
span of
lights turning.
That guy that was on the sidewalk. ... He saw
this traffic, and he also saw Adams coming. That’s
why he didn’t go. Why did Derby go? He has to be at
E:
all
some
28.
Ibid., p. 306.
Ibid.; also B. Aubrey Fisher, “The Process of Decision
Modification in Small Discussion Groups,” Journal of Com-
29.
fault.
Ibid., pp.
303-4.
munication 20 (1970): 51-64.
234
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
suggests that “flight” behavior helps manage
tension and conflict. The group’s need to work
on interpersonal dynamics is supported by
of groups, correlating interpersonal messages
with other group factors. In other words interaction analysis provides a
ideas
Bales’s notion
on interpersonal
barriers
of socioemotional (versus
and
task)
a
Fisher finds that in modifying proposals,
more
in a discussion
“with
“begin with
tions
trends
a public health
A
group, as
it
common
is
value of understanding general group
bought at the price of depth under-
standing of particular events in groups
mod-
Bales’s theory
of the contribu-
which public health has made
of nursing .” 30
The
over.
of
a history
leads to their
individual acts (or interacts)
scheme, rich idiosyncratic meanings are glossed
specific language.
non-threatening something” was
a
When
are analyzed according to a classification
nursing conference, an original idea to begin
ified to
which
trade-off,
weakness.
groups tend to follow one of two patterns. If
conflict is low, the group will reintroduce proFor example,
to analyze
both appropriate and
interaction.
posals in less abstract,
way
group communication. Thus these theories are
heuristic. These advantages, however, have been gained at the price of
other theories as well, including Collins and
Guetzkow’s
AND ORGANIZATIONS
THEORIES OF GROUPS
is
31
.
an excellent beginning for
understanding interaction in groups. His theory
is highly parsimonious and internally con-
to the field
successively re-
sistent.
It is
built
on
a sensible
and intuitively
num-
turns to a proposal, seems to follow the pattern
appealing conceptual base, from which a
of stating the problem, discussing
ber of propositions about group interaction are
criteria for
The
solution, introducing an abstract solution, and
derived.
moving
denced by the numerous studies based on the
finally to a concrete solution.
Keep
in
theory’s heuristic value
evi-
is
own
mind, however, that the group most likely will
not move through these four steps with continuity. Rather, it will deal sporadically with
these themes as members depart from and re-
Bales categories, including Bales’s
turn to the proposal in a stop-and-start fashion.
weaknesses. First the theory
The second typical pattern of modification
occurs when conflict is higher. Here the group
does not attempt to make a proposal more
ented. In other
on the
very nature of the proposal, the group introduces substitute proposals of the same level of
statements by other people. Fisher, in contrast,
specific.
Because disagreement
University.
Bales’s system has been criticized for
tion response.
will stand
exists
abstraction as the original. In the
first
pattern,
which involves making proposals more
the group task seems to be one of
mutual discovery of the best specific implementation of a general idea. In this social conflict
pattern the task is more of debate and persua-
specific,
sion
among
on
words
It
its
it
fails
is
presumes that any statement
own apart from contiguous
shows how analyses
that stop at the act level are
The second problem of Bales’s
system is that it separates the task and socioemotional areas of group discussion. Careful
examination of groups in action shows that task
and socioemotional functions are thoroughly
mixed.
One can fulfill both task and
tions in a single statement,
it is
and
social func-
in classifying
difficult to validly separate
these functions. True, a given statement
share a
ness.
common
The
strength
is
common weak-
sequently Bales envisions the group as a
that interaction analysis,
whether of the Bales or Fisher type, allows us to
look carefully at the communication behavior
30. Fisher, Decision
Making,
may
be
mostly task, or mostly social, but to separate
them completely would be a mistake. Con-
and Fisher’s theories
strength and a
two
strictly act ori-
to describe interac-
not adequate.
group behavior
various alternative proposals.
Criticism: In general Bales’s
re-
search over a twenty-year period at Harvard
that
31. Ibid., p. 322.
p. 155.
235
body
swings between discussion of task matters
of social matters, back and forth.
to discussion
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Fisher, on the other hand, finds that groups do
not operate in this way. Such criticism casts
doubt on the validity of Bales’s approach.
Fisher takes a major step toward correcting
these problems, but his theory too has weaknesses. Although Fisher’s theory admits to the
existence of the relational dimension of interacit makes no attempt to correlate the conand relational aspects of group discussion.
second weakness is related to the first. Fish-
aspects or panels for
structure, and population traits.
While personality describes the predictable behavior of an individual, syntality is the predict-
of group behavior. Thus a group
appear aggressive, efficient, isolated,
able pattern
may
energetic, reliable.
tion,
structure, is
tent
relations
Its
method does not accommodate nonverbal
elements of messages. (Bales’s method shares
er’s
weakness.) Consequently
this
many of the most
central aspects of relational messages are ig-
Anyone who has participated in a group
discussion knows that the nonverbal element is
nored.
powerful form of communication, both of
To be fair, of
course, we must note how difficult it would be
to accurately code nonverbal interaction, which
undoubtedly is the reason Fisher has not ata
so.
Theories of Interpersonal Effects
in
Groups
The
theories discussed so far in this chapter
present a variety of factors interacting to create
an interpersonal dynamic in group communication.
These factors include
teraction patterns, phases,
now
consider
two
roles, norms, inand others. We will
theories that concentrate
on
the nature of interpersonal effects in groups and
integrate much of what already has been dis-
cussed.
The
of group
syntality, and the second is Janis’s groupthink
hypothesis. Both theories attempt an answer to
the question: What is the outcome of interpersonal communication in groups? Cattell offers a
first is
Cattell’s theory
general answer, while Janis suggests a specific
negative effect.
sonality) has
been influential
group dynamics
32.
Raymond
32
.
Cattell,
He
in the history
of
suggests three defining
“Concepts and Methods
in the
Mea-
panel, internal
modes of government,
and patterns of communication. The third panel
internal subgroupings,
is
population
vidual
traits, the traits of a group’s indimembers. In defining a group’s populayou would discuss the modal or
tion traits,
typical
characteristics,
including intelligence,
and so forth.
These three panels are interrelated; syntality
a function of population traits and internal
attitudes,
is
structure. This notion reinforces points
made
by Lewin about the interrelationships between
the group and the individual. The theory as a
whole can be summarized as follows: People
with individual personalities and traits come
together to achieve their goals
more
efficiently.
they commit their energies to
achieving group tasks and to maintaining the
group. What the group accomplishes is a direct
In so doing,
amount of energy invested by
members. The total group effect is
function of the
the separate
of
energy input and output. Let us
look more closely at these relationships.
a result
its
The key concept in group effect is synergy.
Group synergy is the total energy input of the
members. However, much of the energy put
into a group does not directly support its goals.
Because of interpersonal demands, energy must
be expended to maintain relationships and
overcome interpersonal
synergy
Theory of Group Syntality. Raymond
Cattell’s theory of group syntality (group perCattell’s
The second
defined in terms of the interpersonal
among the group members. Such
characteristics may deal with status structure,
content and relational dimensions.
tempted to do
group description: syntality
traits, internal
is
the
barriers.
group energy remaining
Effective
after in-
or group maintenance synergy is subtracted.
While such intrinsic energy is productive in the
trinsic
it works toward group cohesiveness,
does not contribute directly to task ac-
sense that
it
complishment
33
.
surement of Group Syntality,” Psychological Review 55
(1948):
48-63.
33.
236
This discussion helps us better understand Collins and
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
THEORIES OF GROUPS
III:
The synergy of a group results from the
of the members toward the group. To
members have different attitudes
don but ineffective output. Janis’s ideas give us
more concrete explanation of synergistic facand at the same time they demonstrate
how actual practice may vary from predictions
made by syntality theory.
attitudes
a
the extent that
tors,
toward the group and its operations, conflict
will result, increasing the proportion of energy
needed for group maintenance. Thus the more
that individuals possess similar attitudes,
less
Unlike the other theories presented
the
It
greater the effective synergy.
Let’s use a simplified
a
example
to see
how
group performance;
nesses in
it
applied to
is
Suppose
actual political groups. Janis has relied heavily
on social-psychological research on group dy-
members have varying
attitudes toward
manners of
your meetings you argue a lot about
how to organize your efforts and how to learn
the material. Much time and energy is spent
working out these interpersonal problems. This
is your intrinsic synergy.
Now, after getting
your test grade back, if you sense that the study
group failed to achieve the goal of mutual benefit, you will withdraw your energy and join
another group or study alone. In this case the
effective synergy of the group was so low that it
did not accomplish more than you could have
accomplished yourself. Next suppose that you
join another group. This group agrees immediately on how to proceed and gets down to
work. Since there are few interpersonal barriers
to overcome, the group is cohesive. The effective synergy is high, and everyone does better
on the examination than they would have done
had they studied alone.
34.
that the
is
study group, you discover
Cattell’s theory explains real events.
forming
in this
is normative and applied.
normative in that it provides a base for
diagnosing problems and remediating weak-
chapter, Janis’s theory
the need for intrinsic investment, and the
that in
AND ORGANIZATIONS
the subject matter and differing
namics, integrating concepts such as cohesiveness in explaining actual observed group prac-
study. In
tices. Janis
describes groupthink:“I use the term
groupthink
mode of
as a
quick and easy
way
to refer to a
when
thinking that people engage in
they are deeply involved in
when members’
cohesive in-group,
a
strivings for unanimity over-
ride their motivation to realistically appraise al-
ternative courses
ness
is
of action.
The invidiousGroupthink refers to a de.
.
.
intentional:
terioration of mental efficiency, reality testing,
and moral judgment that results from in-group
pressures.” 35
Janis’s
ical
approach
is
intriguing.
He uses
histor-
data to support his theory by analyzing six
decision-making episodes in which
outcomes were either good or bad, depending
political
on the extent of groupthink. 36 These
historical analyses
once again
interesting
illustrate
how
communication theory may be generated in a
variety of arenas. One of the finest qualities of
approach is that his theory involves small
group communication at the interface of psychology, political science, and history.
Groupthink can have six negative outcomes:
Janis’s
Janis’s
Groupthink
Theory. Cattell’s theory
gives us one kind of answer to the question of
The groupthink
much different. 34
interpersonal effects in groups.
hypothesis of Irving Janis
Janis examines in
decisions
some
is
detail the
adequacy of
made by groups. He shows how
tain conditions
1
.
The group
alternatives.
It
limits
can lead to high group satisfac-
The
Guetzkow’s
35.
Ibid., p. 9.
ley’s
36.
idea of assembly effects and Thibaut and Kelconception of costs and rewards.
237
discussion to only a few
a full
range of
creative possibilities.
2.
Irving L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study
of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Copyright© 1972,
Houghton Mifflin Company. Used by permission.
its
does not consider
cer-
position initially favored by most
These include the Bay of Pigs, the Korean War, Pearl
Harbor, and the escalation of the Vietnam War, as negative
examples. Positive examples include the Cuban Missile
Crisis and the Marshall Plan.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
members
obvious
3.
is
never restudied to seek out
fails to
Expert opinion
is
The group
not sought.
so confident in its chosen alterdoes not consider contingency
is
it
is
marked by
number of symptoms. The first symptom of
groupthink is an illusion of invulnerability, which
a
undue
creates an
group
air
of optimism. Second, the
creates collective efforts to rationalize the
course of action decided on. Third, the group
maintains an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality,
ethical or
leading to a soft pedaling of
moral consequences. Out-group leadweak, or stupid. In
ers are stereotyped as evil,
addition direct pressure
is
exerted
on members
not to express counteropinions. Dissent is
quickly squelched. This leads to the sixth
symptom,
there
is
a
the self-censorship of deviations.
shared
illusion
make cohesiveness
and mutually recognized competence are
Thus
of unanimity within the
group. Finally, groupthink involves the
emergence of self-appointed mindguards to protect
the group and its leader from adverse opinion
and unwanted information. The mindguard
typically
suppresses negative information by
counseling participants not to “rock the boat.”
Groupthink
is a direct result of cohesiveness
groups. Most small group research and
theory indicate that cohesiveness is functional in
in
group performance. Lewin writes that cohesiveness is a reflection of the degree to which all
group members share common goals and values. According to Cattell, the amount of effective synergy in groups results from cohesiveness, since cohesive groups need expend little
intrinsic synergy. Although Janis does not deny
the value of cohesiveness in decision-making
groups, he shows how highly cohesive groups
may still invest a lot of energy on maintaining
238
re-
ceived in highly cohesive groups. With such
rewards
not surprising that group
members invest intrinsic synergy to maintain
solidarity. The doubts or uncertainties that arise
may
plans.
Janis maintains that groupthink
that can
negative is the person’s need to maintain selfesteem. Such rewards as friendship, prestige,
by the majority.
The group is highly selective in gathering
and attending to available information.
native that
group to the detriment of deci-
in the
The element
reexamine those alterna-
5.
6.
goodwill
sion making.
tives originally disfavored
4.
less
pitfalls.
The group
at stake,
lead to an
it is
undermining of group confi-
dence and hence of individual members’ selfesteem. Janis summarizes the problem as follows: “The greater the threats to the self-esteem
of members of
a cohesive decision-making
body, the greater will be their inclination to
resort to concurrence-seeking at the expense of
critical
thinking. If this explanatory hypothesis
correct, symptoms of groupthink will be
found most often when a decision poses a moral
dilemma, especially if the most advantageous
course of action requires the policy-makers to
is
violate their
own
standards of humanitarian be-
havior.” 37
Thus cohesiveness
is a necessary but not
condition for groupthink. Under
sufficient
conditions of low cohesiveness, factors
may
be
present that prevent the illusion of unanimity.
The
natural conflict in noncohesive groups
leads to
much
debate and consideration of all
Unfortunately such conflict is
sides
of an
itself
dysfunctional in decision making, as sev-
issue.
have pointed out. The amount of
synergy absorbed by conflict significantly reduces group output.
eral theorists
What is the answer to this dilemma? Janis
believes that decision-making groups need to
recognize the dangers of groupthink.
He
suggests steps to prevent groupthink:
1
.
The
leader of a policy-forming
group should asevaluator to each member,
sign the role of critical
encouraging the group to give high priority to airing
objections and doubts.
2.
The
leaders in an organization’s hierarchy,
assigning
a
policy-planning mission to
37. Janis, Victimsof Groupthink, p. 206.
a
when
group,
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
should be impartial instead of stating preferences and
expectations at the outset.
3.
The organization should
appreciable degree,
the period
when
dynamics
the feasibility and
together to
5.
problem with
under different chairmen, and then come
hammer out their differences.
synergy
is
Each member of the policy-making group should
a
is
that
fact,
is
earlier. Janis’s
nothing more
The
case.
One
implies that intrinsic synergy
work shows
that this
thrust of Janis’s hypothesis
the group.
At every meeting devoted to evaluating policy
one member should be assigned
the role of devil’s advocate.
from laboratory research but from
Janis’s theory
tion theories
After reaching a preliminary consensus about
to be the best policy alternative, the
policy-making group should hold a “second-chance”
meeting at which every member is expected to ex-
is
perspectives or
what seems
air in this
that
not. This groupthink theory involves in a
it
does not take us very
ing or explaining
some of the important concepts
from previous research and theory. It demon-
suggests a
its
how
far in
understand-
groups function. It
against one particu-
way of guarding
danger in groups, but it does not help us
understand the nature of cohesiveness, conflict,
lar
In addi-
new
understandings in its own
right. Janis’s approach is valuable because, like
Lewin’s theory, it provides a multidisciplinary
roles,
or communication. For this reason
scholars
would be
reluctant to call Janis’s
some
work
39. For a laboratory test of the groupthink hypothesis, see
John A. Courtright, “A Laboratory Investigation of Group-
view.
Ibid., pp.
of
group functioning. However, this aspect of the
theory leads to one of its weaknesses, namely,
practical setting
38.
breath of fresh
It is a normative, or prescriptive
theory, providing guidelines for improved
out of place, yet
of group dynamics.
a
different also because
is
applied nature.
After our review of several basic theories of
provides
on limited
on limited types of research.
regard.
Janis’s theory
small group communication, Janis’s applied and
it
stems not only
that they are based
Theories such as Janis’s are like
press as vividly as he can all his residual doubts and to
rethink the entire issue before making a definitive
choice. 38
tion,
It
.
9.
strates the viability
appealing.
is
utility of group
dynamics ideas in understanding actual groups
at work. As we have seen repeatedly in this
book, one of the failings of most communica-
of
time (perhaps an entire session) should be spent surveying all warning signals from rivals and constructing alternative scenarios of the rivals’ intentions.
it is
that in
theory that demonstrates the
the policy issue involves relations with
may seem
not the
field application and historical case study as well 39 It is a
alternatives, at least
prescriptive theory
is
Groupthink occurs precisely because not
enough conflict (intrinsic energy) is present in
members.
Whenever
is
highly cohesive groups where intrinsic synergy
is low, group output may in fact be inadequate.
7.
a rival nation or organization, a sizable bloc [sic]
The
representation of
Cattell’s
it
bad and that the more effective the synergy in
group, the better the group’s output will be.
Clearly Janis’s
or more outside experts or qualified colleagues within the organization who are not core
members of the policy-making group should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis and should
be encouraged to challenge the views of the core
8.
it
has been applied re-
it
summarized
than application of the synergy notion.
discuss periodically the group’s deliberations with
trusted associates in his own unit of the organization
and report back their [sic] reactions.
6.
literature
groupthink theory, in
of policy alternatives are being surveyed, the policy-making group should from time to
time divide into two or more subgroups to meet
effectiveness
separately,
that
is
useful in
is
peatedly and developed in detail in the group
deliberations under a different leader.
Throughout
value of Cattell’s theory
understanding groups. Although Cattell does
not develop this idea of group energy to any
ministrative practice of setting up several independent policy-planning and evaluation groups to work
on the same policy question, each carrying out its
4.
The
Criticism.
presents a basic idea, synergy, that
routinely follow the ad-
209-19.
think,” Communication Monographs 45 (1978): 229-246.
239
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
a
theory
at all. Janis
himself refers to
this appli-
tory
appears to be high.
test, also
theory
tive side the
On
the nega-
somewhat narrow
is
scope and is not heuristic
of research ideas.
in
producing
in
a range
are
all
impossible .” 42 Fourth, organizations usually
last longer than a human lifetime.
The groupthink hypothesis appears to have
validity. Not only is it internally consistent in
terms of congruence with other known aspects
of groups, but its external validity, established
through application to actual cases and labora-
among
so that close personal relations
cation merely as a hypothesis.
The second
George
definition of organization
Strother’s.
is
According to Strother, or-
two or more people incooperative relationship, which
they have collective goals. The
ganizations consist of
volved
in
a
implies that
members of the
organization differ in terms of
function, and they maintain a stable hierarchical
structure. Strother also recognizes that the or-
ganization exists within an environment or
milieu 43
Theories of Organizational Communication
According to sociologist Amatai Etzioni: “Our
society
an organizational society.
is
in organizations,
educated in organizations, and
most of us spend much of our
We
organizations.
We are born
spend
lives
working
much of our
for
leisure
time playing and praying in organizations.
Most of us will die in an organization, and
when
comes
the time
organization of all
for burial,
— the
state
the largest
— must grant
offi-
permission .” 40
cial
We know that a great deal of communication
takes place in the context of the organization. A
large
body of
written about
literature
and theory has been
human communication
in orga-
In our search to understand the
communication process, it is important for us
to browse along the way in the area of organiza-
nizations.
tion theory.
Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner outline
four characteristics of an organization that distinguish
it
from other
first is formality.
set
of goals,
The
policies,
lations that give
it
social
groupings
41
.
The
typical organization has a
procedures, and regu-
form. The second quality of
organizations
is hierarchy typically expressed in
terms of pyramidal structure. Third, organiza-
tions tend to consist
40.
An
may
nication perspective.
of the
literature
many
commumuch
be viewed from
Many
is
the
theories and
on organizations ignore
this
some of the writing both recognizes
the importance of communication and covers it
aspect, but
University departments of business
and speech communication reflect this concern
in their curricula. A survey on organizational
communication indicates that a large portion of
in detail.
speech communication graduate programs offers
courses in organizational communication stressing theory, research, and application 44
.
we will survey some imporof human organization, emphasizing their contributions to our understanding of
interpersonal communication. Most reviewers
divide this theory into three broad groups 45
The first, classical theory, rests on assumptions
that organizational members are instruments of
management or, more broadly, of the bureaucracy. Classical theories attempt to answer
In this section
tant theories
.
questions such as the following:
work
divided?
How many
How
levels
is
“How
is
the
the labor force divided?
of authority and control
,
of many people, “enough
Amatai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p.
41.
Organizations
perspectives, only one of which
Bernard Berelson and Gary
Inventory of Scientific Findings
Brace, 1964), p. 364.
(New
Ibid.
George B. Strother, “Problems in the Development of
Social Science of Organization,” in The Social Science
of
Organizations: Four Perspectives, ed. H.
J. Leavitt (En43.
a
glewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 23.
44. Gerald
Goldhaber, Organizational Communication
(Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 1974), p. 8.
1.
Steiner,
42.
Human
Behavior:
York: Harcourt,
45. Ibid., p. 24. See also
Organizations
240
(New
James March and Herbert Simon,
York: John Wiley
&
Sons, 1958), p.
6.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
How many
exist?
What
at
human
each level?
is
that
of each perof the weaknesses of classical
it deals little with communica-
For
this
reason
theory
One
he
we
will look at
it
organiza-
What
Weber
a
is
sive activity
of
organization’
is
“An
system of continuous, purpo-
A
a specified kind.
‘corporate
an associative social relationship
by an administrative
staff devoted
purposive activity.” 50 A
of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is
his concepts of power, authority, and legitimacy. For Weber power is the ability of a person in
any social relationship to influence others and to
characterized
to such continuous
What is
people? What
ships exist as a result of various roles?
central part
and psychological needs exist for the
What informal groups exist within the
social
areas for which
of bureaucracy.
work found in
defines organization as follows:
‘organization’
status relation-
the morale and attitude of the
his theory
is
part of a larger
is
theory of organization.
cal
communication is usually termed human
on propositions asserting that
people’s attitudes, values, and personal needs are
all important. Fundamental human relations
questions include: “What roles do people as-
tional
relations. It rests
in the organization?
One of the
known
form the heart of what is commonly known as
structuralism. These ideas, developed at the beginning of the century, relate to the early classi-
theory of bureaucracy.
sume
institutions.
best
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,
edited by Talcott Parsons 49 Weber’s concepts
only
pertinent of the classical approaches, Weber’s
The second school of thought on
is
This theory
focusing on the most prominent and
briefly,
AND ORGANIZATIONS
THEORIES OF GROUPS
are the specific job functions
son?” 46
tion.
people exist
III:
people?
organization?” 47
overcome
resistance.
Power
in this sense
is
fun-
school.
damental to most social relationships. When
power is legitimate, compliance is effective and
This group of theories, which assumes that or-
complete. Etzioni summarizes this concept:
on decision making and
problem solving, tends to answer the following
kinds of questions: “What are the key parts of
the organization? How do they relate interde-
“Weber’s study of legitimation introduces a
whole new dimension to the study of organizational discipline. He used power to refer to the
A
third branch
theory
may
of thought
be called the
in organizational
social systems
ganizations are based
pendently to each other?
What
ability to
induce acceptance or orders; legitima-
tion to refer to
processes in the
the acceptance of the exercise of
with values held by
organization facilitate these interdependent rela-
power because
What are the main goals of the organization? What is the relationship between the
organization and its environment?” 48 The sys-
the subjects; and authority to refer to the
tionships?
it is
bination of the
viewed
tems approach is the most popular perspective
for viewing organizations. Here we summarize
two important system theories of organizations
that emphasize communication as the basis for
system relationships.
in line
two
—
as legitimate.”
51
to
i.e.,
power
com-
that
is
This idea of legitimate
Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic OrganiM. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1947). A lengthy interpretation and discussion of Weber’s theory can be found in
Parson’s introduction to the above book. Other secondary
49.
zations, trans. A.
Weber’s Classical Bureaucratic Theory
Certainly Max Weber was one of the most
prominent sociology and economics theorists
of all time. In his lifetime, from 1864 to 1930, he
produced a quantity of work on the nature of
sources include: Strother, “Problems”; Dwight Waldo,
“Organizational Theory: An Elephantine Problem,” GenSystems 7 (1962): 247-60; March and Simon, Organiza-
eral
tions;
Etzioni, Modern Organizations Reinhard Bendix,
;
liography of primary and secondary sources on Weber, see
S. N. Eisenstadt, Max Weber on Charisma and Institution
Building (Chicago: University
46.
Goldhaber, Organizational Communication,
47.
Ibid.
50.
48.
Ibid.
51. Etzioni,
p. 7.
241
Max
Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1962); Julien Freund, The Sociology of Max Weber (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1968). For a more complete bib-
Weber,
Social and
of Chicago Press, 1968).
Economic Organizations,
Modern Organizations,
p. 51.
p. 151.
,
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
power is a central communication concern.
Whether communications will be accepted in an
organization hinges on the degree to which the
must be free to allocate resources within their
realms of influence without fear of outside in-
superior has legitimate authority.
fringement.
Weber
The first
outlines three types
is traditional
of authority 52
.
authority. Traditional au-
when orders of the superior are
perceived as justified by tradition. One’s power
is seen as legitimate because “it has always been
thority occurs
The second form of
legitimate.”
authority
bureaucratic or rational-legal authority.
is
most relevant
thorities in a
in bureaucracies.
is
This form
The au-
bureaucracy derive their power
from the bureaucracy’s rules, which govern and
by all organization members.
Weber sees bureaucracy as the most efficient
pattern for mass administration: “Experience
are accepted
tends to
show
that the purely bureaucratic type
—
—
of administrative organization that is, the
monocratic variety of bureaucracy is, from a
purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this
sense formally the
most
known means
control over human
rational
of carrying out imperative
beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability .” 53
Weber’s view of bureaucracy rests on a
number of well-defined principles 54 First, bureaucracy is based on rules. Such rules allow the
solution of problems, standardization, and
.
equality in the organization.
reaucracies are based
competence.
Thus
Second, buon the concept of sphere of
there
is
a systematic division
ership of the organization. Sixth, bureaucrats
Seventh, a bureaucracy requires
carefully maintained records. This final crite-
rion
important
in terms of communication.
it this way: “Administrative acts,
and rules are formulated and recorded in writing, even in cases where oral
discussion is the rule or is even mandatory. This
applies to preliminary discussions and proposals, to final decisions, and to all sorts of orders
and rules. The combination of written documents and a continuous organization of official functions constitutes the ‘office’ which is
the central focus of all types of modern corpois
Weber puts
decisions,
rate action .” 55
Another feature of a bureaucracy is that it is
usually headed by a nonbureaucrat. Nonbureaucratic heads are often elected or inherit
their positions.
nets,
They include
presidents, cabi-
boards of trustees, and kings. Bureaucrats
are dispensable; they
may
larly trained individuals,
the nonbureaucratic head
be replaced by simibut the succession of
may
well be a
crisis,
precipitating innovation and change.
The
first
two types of
authority are tradi-
and bureaucratic forms. The third is
Under this type of authoriis justified through the charismatic
nature of the superior individual’s personality.
Unlike bureaucratic authority charisma defies
order and routine. The charismatic leader is
tional
charismatic authority.
ty,
power
revolutionary and establishes authority in opposition to the traditions of the day. One’s
of labor, each role having clearly defined rights
and powers. Third, the essence of bureaucracy
leadership as a prophet or
hierarchy. Fourth, administrators are appointed on the basis of their knowledge and
about through the demonstration of magical
powers and heroism. Weber does not have
They are not generally elected, nor do
they inherit their positions. Fifth, the members
much
of the bureaucracy must not share
Weber’s theory is included here
primarily as a general backdrop for other
theories to come. In this regard it serves two
is
training.
in the
own-
52.
Weber, Social and Economic Organizations, pp. 330—32.
53.
Ibid., p. 337.
54.
Ibid., pp.
tions,
330—34. See also Etzioni,
faith in this
kind of mass persuasion.
Criticism.
functions.
Modem
demagogue comes
First,
it
provides
a
“classical” or
Organiza-
pp. 53-54.
55.
242
Weber, Social and Economic Organizations
p. 332.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
standard picture with which the other theories
can be contrasted. Second,
mon
it
presents the
sultant.
com-
view of organizations, relating
the essence of the classical notion of organizations. Notice that communication and human
behavior are downplayed in the theory; the
thrust is structure and task factors. For our purposes this facet is the theory’s greatest weakness. The theory gives implicit ideas of what
communication is like in organizations, but
communication is not treated as an explanatory
variable, nor is it seen as the essence of organizational life. As the upcoming sections will inis
theory
way
is
summary of the Hawthorne work. 57 Because of his
impact on the beginnings of human relations,
agement and the Worker was published as a
Elton
or
why
idea of
branches in the
how
does not
is
is
human
relations
The
of the leadership school
thesis
that leadership facilitates morale,
which
One
in
of the
most important manifestations of this branch is
leadership training and T-groups (training
groups). The second branch of the human
validity,
movement
more
relations
sumptions of these theories
with organizational climate
is
movement. 58
deals primarily with leadership in or-
the philosophical appropriateness of the asis
important
also an
turn leads to increased productivity.
organizations operate. While the
some
first
ganizations.
not get an adequate
claims of classical theories have
considered the founder of the
Charles Perrow describes two general
The
It
is
early contributor.
organizations operate the
we do
Mayo
movement. Kurt Lewin
significant.
prescriptive or normative.
how
they do. Hence
some
the direction of this team,
employees about their problems and
perceptions. These original interviews led to
additional research on group functioning. ManElectric
Like most other classical treatments, Weber’s
explain
Under
three hundred interviewers talked with Western
traditional
dicate, this failure
AND ORGANIZATIONS
not adequate, nor
is
general, dealing
as a
whole. Again,
productivity and worker welfare are stressed.
their heuristic value high.
Etzioni points out that “above
Hu-
of the failure of classical
theory to deal with communication in a central
way, the human relations movement began in
man Relations School
emphasized the role
of communication, participation, and lead-
the 1930s.
ership.” 59
Precisely because
.
relations
by
school of organization
theory developed partially as
a reaction to the
and partially as a reacof the 1930s. World War
II pushed the movement onward, and by the
mid-1940s it had become very popular. Human
relations theory originated with the Hawthorne
56.
sterile
classical theories
tion to the depression
which received considerable attention
and 1930s. 56 These extensive studies
were directed by F. J. Roethlisberger, a Harvard
industrial psychologist, and R. Dickson, a
Western Electric manager. Elton Mayo of the
Harvard Business School later acted as a constudies,
in the 1920s
111.:
Scott,
Foresman, 1972),
The
reac-
tion of this school against classical theory
is
Roethlisberger and W. Dickson, Management and the
Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939).
For an excellent brief description of the Hawthorne
Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Crit-
Essay (Glenview,
basic tenets
social
Argyris and Interpersonal Competence.
studies, see Charles
ical
the
the following: First, productivity
Relations School
The human
all,
.
of human relations include
is determined
norms, not physiological factors. Second, noneconomic rewards are all important in
motivating workers. Third, workers usually
react as group members rather than individuals.
Fourth, leadership is extremely important and
involves both formal and informal aspects.
Fifth, human relationists stress communication
as the most important facilitator of shared decision making. 60
The
Human
.
p. 97.
243
57.
F.
58.
Perrow, Complex Organizations,
59.
Etzioni,
60.
Ibid., p. 38.
Modem
p. 97.
Organizations, p. 32.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
perhaps best illustrated by the theory of Chris
Argyris,
which
Argyris’s contribution
ter 10).
is
the application
nization relationship. 61 Recognizing that orga-
of these postulates to organizational life. The
relationship between the person and the organi-
nizations are complex, Argyris has chosen to
zation involves
stresses
the individual-orga-
what Argyris calls “the basic
dilemma between the needs of individuals aspir-
focus on one source of energy in organizations
— human
psychological energy.
Speci-
ing for psychological success and self-esteem
he has been interested in interpersonal
competence and interpersonal relationships.
and the demand of the pyramidal structure.” 63
The strategies typically viewed as necessary to
achieve organizational objectives conflict with
the needs of the individual. Here we see a direct
manifestation of human relations’ reaction
fically,
For Argyris there
is
a
lawful unity in every
which defines the
individual,
This self or
self.
from
personality develops interpersonally
The person
teraction with others.
world through
in-
sees the
this self-filter, accepting stimuli
congruent with the self and distorting,
denying, or rejecting stimuli that cannot be inthat are
Thus threatening
which blocks the
become aware of new pos-
tegrated readily into the
self.
against classical theory.
Argyris believes that
traditional organizational assumptions require
from important dimenThis separation happens in six
the person to separate
sions
of the
ways.
self.
First,
the person
is
required to behave
stimuli arouse defensiveness,
“rationally,” thus divorcing the self
person’s ability to
ings.
sibilities.
Persons have
need to increase
a basic
self-acceptance and acceptance of others, a need
is hard to fulfill in the presence of threat
and defensiveness. Argyris shows that this is an
interpersonal problem: “We come to the con-
that
clusion that
enhance
to
impossible for
it is
a
human
being
awareness and acceptance of (as-
his
from
feel-
Second, the principle of specialization
worker from pursuing the need to
utilize the range of abilities. Third, the
mechanisms used by individuals to compensate
prohibits the
(or escape), including
daydreaming, absentee-
ism, turnover, trade unions, and noninvolve-
ment, further drive the person from the need to
be a producing, growing person. Fourth, the
pects of) his self without simultaneously creat-
principle
ing the conditions for others to do the same.
ordinate, passive, and dependent states. This
Put in another way, an individual’s growth and
condition worsens the lower the level in the
chain of command. Fifth, the same principle
learning (on the interpersonal level)
is
bly tied up with his fellow man.” 62
An
inexora-
of power places the individual
in
sub-
a
removes the worker from self-responsibility.
Sixth, the principle of control (separation)
places the evaluation of one’s work in the hands
of another.
high degree of descriptive (nonevaluative) feedback, trust, and experimentation. It is low in
organizations to “get the job done” defeat indi-
defensiveness and threat.
vidual growth.
This view of interpersonal communication is
grounded in humanistic psychology (see Chap-
pattern
tic
relationship
is
one
in
which both
authen-
parties can
increase their sense of self-worth and self-
awareness. Such a relationship
is
marked by
In
62.
61
.
The core of
framework is found in Chris
and Organization: The Conflict between
Argyris’s
Argyris, Personality
System and the Individual
1957)
the
.
It is
updated
Organization
(New York: Harper & Brothers,
I of Integrating the Individual and
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964).
summary
is
the traditional strategies used in
To make
As
cyclical.
Shorter versions are available in part
I
(Homewood,
Richard D. Irwin, 1962) and “Understanding
Human
sup-
destructive cycle
is
illustrated in Figure 11.4. 64
Obviously Argyris’s work refutes classical
and structuralist theories of organization. He
of Interpersonal Com-
petence and Organizational Effectiveness
is
on organizawhich deepens the problem. In
Argyris’s words, while technical competence is
high, interpersonal competence is reduced. The
tional values,
in part
(New
matters worse, the
the individual self
pressed, people are forced to take
111.:
Be-
havior in Organizations,” in Modem Organization Theory,
Mason Haire (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).
ed.
Argyris, Interpersonal Competence, pp. 20-21.
244
envisions a
much
different kind
of organization
63.
Argyris, Integrating, p. 58.
64.
Argyris, Interpersonal Competence, p. 43.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
Reproduced with permission from Argyris,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1962.
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
AND ORGANIZATIONS
Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness,
©
Figure 11.4. Argyris’s model of human relations.
245
Homewood,
III.:
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
which human values are as important as production values. Argyris would not abandon the
broad groups of organizational variables.
Causal variables are those that can be changed or
in
pyramid
structure,
but he would encourage
altered. In this sense they
may
be considered
as
other concurrent forms in which individuals
the independent variables in the model. Inter-
making
vening variables are those that lead to the results
participate in organizational decision
and evaluation. 65
of the causal manipulations. They reflect the
general internal state and health of the orga-
The Managerial Grid. Another popular human
relations model is The Managerial Grid ® of
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. 66 These authors
describe three important dimensions of organizations: purpose (production), people, and
nization.
The Managerial
hierarchy.
Grid, illustrated in
in
a
is
scaled
outcomes
book Blake and Mouton
relate
communi-
relations pattern, they describe
commu-
two way, and
moves along the diagonal
At point
to 9,9.
is
similar to system
are illustrated in Figures 11.6 and
Four Systems. Perhaps the most detailed
11.7.
71
communication to be an
intervening variable, related to the interaction-
that
especially considers
rather elaborate theory can be
Patterns
1,
Obviously communication is included
throughout Likert’s model. However, Likert
of Rensis Likert 69 This
found in New
of Management and, more recently, in
is
this sys-
in nature. The authority figures still
maintain control, but they seek consultation
theory of human relations, and surely the most
explanatory,
Under
from below. At the other extreme of the spectrum, system 4 management or participative
management, allows the worker to participate
fully in decision making. System 4 leads to high
performance and an increased sense of responsibility and motivation. These interrelationships
9,1
closure.” 68
Likert’s
any point
sultative
communication
is highly formal, task oriented, and one way.
At 1,9 it is very informal, social, and approval
oriented. At 9,9 “the goal is open, authentic,
and candid communication; that is full dis1,1
at
is sensitive to the needs
of the worker. Moving farther along the continuum, we come to system 3, which is con-
nication as increasingly open,
from
organization can function
a continuum of four systems. System 1,
the extreme of the continuum, is the
except that the manager
described in Figure 11.5. Following the general
adaptive, as the style
An
along
authoritative leadership,
cation directly to each of the managerial styles
human
dependent
organizational
tem the executive manages with an iron hand.
Decisions are made by the executive, with no
use of feedback. System 2, or benevolent-
to
are described. 67 In
high, and possible
their
from low
reflect
exploitative-authoritative system.
superior’s attitude for production and
people. Each dimension
end-result variables, the
achievement.
at
Figure 11.5, outlines the various contingencies
The
variables or outputs,
influence system and a subpart of the category
of attitudinal, motivational, and perceptual var-
The Human Organization. 70 Likert outlines three
The relationship of communication variwith management systems is illustrated in
iables.
For a detailed exposition of Argyris’s ideas
organizations, see parts II and III of Integrating.
65.
66.
Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton,
on changing
ables
Table
The Managerial Grid
(Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964). This book describes the
number of managerial styles in some detail.
nature of a
67.
Ibid., pp. 160-61.
69.
Perrow, Complex Organizations.
70.
Rensis Likert,
New
McGraw-Hill, 1961);
York: McGraw-Hill,
a great
deal
of both ideological support and
The movement helped prac-
research data.
Management (New York:
The Human Organization (New
Patterns of
Likert,
72
Criticism. The human relations movement became popular in the 1940s and 1950s, generating
Ibid., p. 10.
68.
11. 3.
1967).
246
Human
71.
Likert,
72.
Ibid., pp. 16-19.
Organization, pp. 76-137.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
and scholars understand that human
nature of organizational communication, group
beings have needs and values related to organizational functioning and that communication
dynamics, and leadership, and it has produced a
useful set of guidelines for improving interper-
and group process are important aspects of organizational life. It has provided thought on the
ever, the
titioners
sonal communication in organizations.
movement was
basically
How-
extreme and
High
9
9,9
1,9
8
Country club management
Thoughtful attention to needs of
Team management
Work accomplishment is from
people for satisfying relation-
committed people; interdepen-
ships leads to a comfortable
dence through
friendly organization
sphere and
7
atmo-
a
“common
stake” in organization purpose
work tempo.
leads to relationships
of trust
and respect.
6
a
o
O
a
5,5
Organization
man management
Adequate organization performance is possible through bal-
5
ancing the necessity to get out
o
work with maintaining morale of
c
o
people
U
at a satisfactory level.
4
i
3
9,1
Authority-obedience
1,1
Impoverished management
Efficiency in operations results
Exertion of minimum effort to
2
priate to sustain organization
work in such a way that human
elements interfere to a minimum
membership.
degree.
get required
1
Low
1
Low
from arranging conditions of
work done
is
appro-
23456789
High
Concern for production
From The Managerial
Grid, by Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley
Mouton. Copyright
by permission of the publisher.
Figure 11.5.
The Managerial Grid®.
247
© 1978 by Gulf Publishing. Reprinted
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
embodied
a
number of
serious problems, as
and simplistic view that high morale improves
outlined next.
Human
productivity.
relations
most from
its
was severely
beginning
primarily attributable to
73
problems are
extreme position
Its
.
its
The
between human
criticized al-
For
73.
a
correlations claimed to exist
relations factors
comprehensive
critique,
and organiza-
see Perrow,
Complex
Organizations
If a
manager
has:
Well-organized plan of operation
High performance goals
High technical competence
(manager or
and
if
the
staff assistants)
manager manages
via:
Causal
variables
systems
or 2
1
SYSTEM 4
for example, uses
for example, uses
principle of supportive relation-
direct hierarchical pressure for
results,
tests
including the usual con-
group methods of superand other principles of
system 4
ships,
and other practices of the
vision,
traditional systems
his organization will display:
Less group loyalty
Greater group loyalty
Lower performance
Intervening
variables
Higher performance goals
goals
Greater conflict and less
cooperation
Less technical assistance
Greater cooperation
More
technical assistance
to peers
Less feeling of unreasonable
pressure
More favorable attitudes
to peers
Greater feeling of unreasonable
pressure
Less favorable attitudes
toward manager
Higher motivation to produce
toward manager
Lower motivation
to
produce
and
Lower
sales
his organization will attain:
volume
Higher
End-result
Higher
variables
Lower quality of business sold
Lower earnings by salesmen
From “New
Copyright
Patterns in Sales
Lower
sales costs
Management,”
in
Changing Perspectives
sales
volume
sales costs
Higher quality of business sold
Higher earnings by salesmen
in
Marketing Management, ed. Martin Warshaw.
© 1962 by The University of Michigan. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Figure 11.6. Sequence of developments in a well-organized
enterprise, as affected by use of System 2 or System 4.
248
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
t-
From The Human
Organization
,
by Rensis
Likert.
THEORIES OF GROUPS
z Jo
u»)sXs
Copyright
I
AND ORGANIZATIONS
uraisXs
© 1967 by McGraw-Hill. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.
Figure 11.7. Simplified diagram of relationships among
variables for system 1 or 2 and system 4 operations.
249
»
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
c^
3
-a
O
a/
33
Oh
-3
GO
‘go
w
>
H
I
*(3
c
Cl3
ft)
£
N
a
a O
«
<
£ o
E
o
u
>>
3
-O
33
p
-3
4-1
o
>
o
3
S
4->
G
3
ca
S °
2
c
0
3
Q
a)
Ji -g
JD 3
03
a>
G>>
V
o'
50
33
.
03
33
I
0/
"rj
ra
<u
Ah
i * *
TJ
u
c/>
to
Oh
V)
3
6
33
03
ca
to
5r
§
6
T3
3
JD
<U
3
'3
£
<u
<U
Ih
a
Q
O
*
jj
.S
£
-»->
J3
a,
o >
8 t
S
3 D ^
g o
« o >
jy
>
3
O
C/5
.
<u
^
<
O
13
2
£ 3
>r
^
g
|S
2 Oh
E S"
3
rt
GJ
3
G
5 d
.2 cu
u O
flj
G 2
O
E
cr
>*
4?
E
I
-rj
-g G3 g^.o
•§
O H
c
I
E
0 o
50 -3
-2
33 .S
--T3
o
— c
3 -£
G rd>,-aU
* E §
E 3 -E
P -O o a, ™
o o y
p *; £
0 E «
ft)
*D
rt
4->
a.
U^6
<
u-°
C
o
33
•§S
O -G
50
0 3
3 cr
E^
-a
2 E o
U
33
‘fl
jiS
O
|_3
/5
C
3 *-’ QJ C
0 .2 03 O
On.tJ O £
^ e '3 2
3
Ah
3 E
iu
c
O 03
U
^ 2^33
3 <u
3
J)
03
Oh
0
G
o3
Oh
<u
’S
Oh 33
3
-G
2
rt
o
a>
33
-O
-3
—
^3
^
*~
3
>•
ft-c
c«
o
oo
<U
cn
o
ft-H
CJ
§
g
3
g
2
o
03
O
O
C/3
^
.2
ft)
m
g
.
Of)
(0
G
rt
3
v-
<a
£
3
2
3
^
s^jr
3
O ^
*-*
r-
1
C
3 33
<u
"T
C/5
33
33
3
O
rt
33
E*
c
3 g
c
C/5
O
•C
£
£ H
03
^
1
g
N
s
2 o
Q
<
s-g
aj
2
E E
S
E
>
a,
8 S
C/5
C/5
is
y
Jh
t
33
<U
£
2
o
tr
1
~g *Oh
o
P
> 3
50
-3
o jy
(
° E
CU-53
^•s-S
«
|- §
2
£PE
£
c
rt>
4->
3
03
S
>
s
^ G
33
'G
o 3
*-»
£
O
ass
H;
<u
Oh
O
G3
O
£&
ah
3
O 3
£
2 3
o
U
33
Wfi
oq
I
<a
o-.y>
g
s
;
i>
,
3
i
’
O
2
•;
t>0
l
C
'
,
<!)
0
1
2
H
<
«
tq
cq
H
U
<
«
<
I
rt
3 >
i
'3 .2
b _c -Q
33
i
O U u
E
SI
-G
£
a
•2
3
tt
.
50
<
-n
-is
5
.i
st
«I
a c
5
-B
K
£
3 e
H
<u
^
^ .2 ^
n «u ^
Q
OU
250
*j
ol
Oh
3
^ -G
3 U
33
3 E <J »- E rt JO3
<L>
U
03
•
3
(A
o £
>s 3
.
I
'-*
t-i
^
D
.s
O co
« r;
5
^
3 U -G «
N
Cf33
O In C 3
3
03
33
Oh
C/5
<u
La
*—
C/5
-•S
a §
« -vs « p
2 <3
3 E
3 o ^ cj
Oh
O U O
1-1
o
u
ca
.
Wh
s
s
V5
3
3 s
3 O
3
<u
J*
Oh-2
3
c/5
*->
Cj
O 3
-c
ca
>-
x>
__,
33
<L>
0
a I *
.s b z l—
333
‘
5
^O
50^
-G
o3G.G
£
o G
..
4->
3
.
<N
>*
u
03
O
Vh
O
y
03
Ij
50 33
f-T
:
-
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
JD
"3
'Oh
O
Oh
3
3
CO
cJ
3 3
o
<xt
c
=
M
>
-o
>
nJ
nl
-3
Z
O g u
w
ti
°O £
J«
J
c*
3
-3
-*3
u
toO
O
E 3
o o o
GO
os
3
e
.
i
Oh
Oh
toO
S
LT >>
u-
3 ^
« E
>
.0
nJ
<u
<U
jg
*3
O
o
E
8 " §
71
3
C
rrt
too
''
V
O ~ 2
c O -p
«s
g
3 £ 3
55 £ *3
.
*3
^g
O
Uh
_
c
2
C
O O
8
2
<u
n
u c2
toi
4->
Uh
«
* £
O
Ul
<2
£
03
i?
>2
2
£
to
tj
Oj
n3
c
-p
3
<D
<L>
£3
lH^
* <S
£ .£ 5
1
g
2
cS
2o
>~-o
U
3
6 <u
3
-
o>
3 £ 3
O
2
§ 8
'co
3
£
*3
to
^
r*"'
&§
g
-rv
O
I
)r.
O
.0 J3
S
O
*3
.§
Uh
S
o
5
co
C
O
O v
3
•kT
1Oh
a>
3
5/5
^
co
-H
<D
ol
toO
too
^3
3
.5
co
Oh
OhXI
3
•
_
O
co
0>
•>
rH
u
oJ
Oh
co
^Oh
3
2 *
c2 c
o
B
4->
-3
>
o
E
.3
&
73
T3 t3
3
<u
H
Oh .3
<U
<D
Uh
03
z
^
rH
„
to
CO
CO
0.2 2
.S^
^
E
o
<2
i»
.S
3 £
o
u-
v
Oh 3
3 3
O £ 3
u P
_
o 03
Uh
^
3 -3
u q 3
Uh
<
£
-B
^ O
£ ‘3
rt
3
Qh U
co
p *3
,0 t- 3
2 S
Oh
Oh
\
Oh
’>
Tj
S
03
rH
^
K
D
s
§•
3
,*-»
12
q
.3
t>
O
^!
)
a.
tO
3
‘3
U
Oh
-a
3
rt.to
co
Uh
o
U
Oh -3
4.o
*3
>
?
<D
00
0
r3
ts
X
3
3 co
UH
2
.2
e
3 D
a> -a
Oh q
„
I
^ u
tJ
TO
r
£
3 3
«
o 3
jj
O
tot
^
° q
co
^
^
>, V3 *3
CO
D Uh
Oh 3 O
-3
co
251
I
Oh o
71
CO
O >»-3
3
^
CO
3 co
.
-g
D 3 S
2
O
D
2
I
X3
I
<U
-3
2
U D’S 0
3
CO
'5b B*'-'
rt
'ij
O
"« 'C
*-<
»*H
-3
1/1
•
2 3
n
O i>
u "O
o
33
4-»
r*
c G X
O
2 c
3
3 >-
is
03
z
g
u
Oh
o _ o
~
o o o
CO
>>
Oh
1>
3 CL(
3
Uh
CO
rH
£ g
U
u
03
to
o3
<L>
co
CO
^
g
^
0
2
g 3 -3
3
3
3 2 o
O £ Oh
ID IS co
rO D D
3 3 3
3 co o
r CO
Oh 3
3 5
S O
^
co
(u
CO
O
U
rt
S
s s
Uh
3
co
<U
toO
toO
<u
-o
”3
CO
Oh
^
3
a>
a>
E
.tot
•£ T\
^
Oh
03
Uh
Is
o
,
3 >
Sfi
£ c
Oh ,2
to
co
>-
3 B
(U
n
<U
U
l
2
>
—>
CO
13
"3
u*
U,
Oh'
t:
3
<u
CO
<D
4>
o
03
Tj
>-
*3
£
3
2
3
^
.S
o -3
3 Uh Uh
Oh
O
aOh
1>
to*
o .S
C -3
Uh
O D
U Oh O
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
tional effectiveness have,
for the
most
part,
of empirical study. In many cases
the correlations have not been found in research, and where they do appear, serious
failed the test
methodological objections have been raised.
One of the biggest apparent weaknesses of
human relations theories is that they ignore
many nonhuman variables that affect the outcome of an organization. Such theories often
to take into account the interrelationships
fail
among
various structural and functional elements of organizational output.
Since much of human relations is based on
the humanistic school of psychology, it shares
many faults of the latter (see Chapter 10). For
instance
human
which
tion in
relations envisions an organizaconflict
is
minimal, suggesting
that anything that
might frustrate workers
and understanding. Yet
creativity
stifle
know
will
we
that the natural conflict that occurs in
groups and organizations can be functional,
both for individual human growth and for organizational vigor, asjanis shows.
Human
relations, like its cousin
humanistic
psychology, is prescriptive in approach and
does not provide much explanation of ongoing
and process nature of organizations,
two together. System theories tend
found among human and structural orga-
holistic
brings these
to be
nizational elements.
Several system theories of organizations
have been devised. One of the first was that of
Chester Barnard. The work of Barnard was
phenomenon. As president of the New
Company, Barnard was
truly a
Jersey Bell Telephone
not only
a practicing executive but produced
one of the most influential treatises on management and organization. Barnard provided
two theories, one on organization and one on
communication as well. His book, The Functions
of the Executive
time
filled a
,
written in 1938,
at that
theory void. 74 Barnard’s thesis is
can only exist through
cooperation and that cooperation is the
that organizations
human
medium through which
individual capabilities
can be combined to achieve superordinate tasks.
Charles Perrow writes the following of Barnard: “This enormously influential and remarkable book contains within it the seeds of three
distinct
were
trends in organizational theory that
dominate the field for the next three
to
One was
decades.
the institutional school [sys-
organizational processes as they occur in natural
tems approach];
organizations.
decision-making school as represented by Herbert Simon;
the third was the human rela-
It
has values for teaching and for
developing certain practical strategies, but it has
little theoretical value in the sense of helping us
understand how and why individuals organize.
Ironically, the
ideology of the right, classical
and the ideology of the left,
Each calls for
particular kinds of practices to improve organizational functioning without providing a basis
for understanding how organizations operate.
The group of theories we will discuss next has
.
.
.
.
another was the
.
.
The leading theorists of these
schools freely acknowledged their debt to Bartions school.
.
.
.
nard.” 75 Calling
him
the last of the “practical
structural theory,
theorists,” Strother writes:
human
work of
come
relations, share this fault:
and institutional economists, as
own wealth of experience, to develop a closely reasoned, almost Euclidean
treatment of industrial organization.” 76
sociologists,
well as his
into existence primarily with this goal in
mind.
“He draws on the
the classical theorists, psychologists,
One of the most
nization
is
The Systems Approach
In the three schools
we see
The
all
needs.
of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
approach stresses structure above
Human
relations
The system
emphasizes
theorists,
.
This techni-
The Functions of the Executive (Cam-
Harvard University Press, 1938).
Perrow, Complex Organizations p. 75.
bridge:
a clear case
classical
else.
by James March and
in Organizations 77
74. Chester Barnard,
of organizational theory,
impactful theories of orga-
that presented
Herbert Simon
human
75.
,
76.
Strother, “Problems,” p. 16.
77.
March and Simon,
source
recognizing the
252
zations.
is
Organizations
the interpretive
A
helpful secondary
work of Perrow, Complex
Organi-
,
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
cal treatise exemplifies theory in its purest
form. Throughout their text March and Simon
present hundreds of propositions related to de-
making and organizational functioning.
work as an im-
cision
Charles Perrow recognizes this
portant extension of human relations and classical
March and Simon themselves
theories.
make
clear in the
it
beginning of their book that
AND ORGANIZATIONS
and because of their impact on the field of
communication. Because space necessitates that
certain choices be made, the elaboration of the
following theories by no means should be taken
as a statement that the works of such theorists
as Barnard, March and Simon, or Katz and
are unimportant. 80
Kahn
only
They
are,
perhaps,
and current to the study of
less central
work was conducted for the purpose of
providing a more complete conceptualization
interpersonal communication than are the
than that found in the “machine” models of the
Russell.
their
past.
Perrow
writes: “Herbert
March have provided
for the
the muscle and flesh
Weberian skeleton, giving it more suband believability without
.
.
Weick and Farace, Monge, and
theories of
Simon and James
.
The
Weick:
most
of Carl Weick. 81 Weick’s
reducing organizational theory to propositions
about individual behavior [as the human rela-
theory of organizing
movement has done] .” 78 As a result of this
fuller view, March and Simon’s conceptualization provides a more complex picture of the
person than does the human relations school
and a more complex picture of organizations
as a basis for
than does the classical school.
ceived wide acclaim and
Another example of
a
munication
provides
is
field
a
that
is
it
uses
theories. Since
Weick
its
inception in 1969,
some
is
activities
within the system.
consist of double interacts,
Perrow, Complex Organizations
79.
Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966).
,
p. 146.
it
has re-
criticism as well.
but as
activities.
It
is
more proper
speak of organizing than of organizations
to
be-
cause organizations are something that people
accomplish, via a process that must be constantly reenacted.
Thus when people do what
they do in an organization, their activities create
organization, so that organizing
The
is
continual.
essence of any organization
people are acting in such a
haviors are
interlocked-,
way
is
that
that their be-
one person’s behavior
contingent on another’s. All organizing
consist of interlocked behaviors. A
fundamental quality of interlocking is that
communication takes place among the people in
the organization.
Thus organizing
a
activities
concept defined
on groups. Remember that
statement of communicative behavior
earlier in the section
an act
80.
first
For
is
a
a
more
detailed
summary of these
edition of this book, Stephen
W.
Human Communication (Columbus:
78.
one
sees organizations not as structures or
of individual needs. Such is the nature of rule
enforcement, accomplished through role behavior, norms, and values. These interrelated
components provide a necessary integration
Organizations
is
of the few truly organizational communication
riding goals that necessitate the subordination
genre have been chosen for discussion because
of their central concern with communication as
the binding element of organizational systems
it
how
rationale for understanding
entities
representative theories of the system
communication
organizing and because
is the work of Daniel Katz and
Robert Kahn. 79 They present a clear and strong
argument in favor of the open system model.
Unlike a physical system the organization is
social, created by people and bonded by
psychological forces. Organizations as social
systems are unique in their need for maintenance inputs or control mechanisms to keep
human variability in check. Like Barnard, Katz
and Kahn teach that the system involves over-
Two
com-
significant in the
because
human
people organize. In short, Weick’s theory
systems approach to
organizations
the
theories of organizational
communication
tions
One of
Process of Organizing.
influential
stance, complexity,
theories, see the
Littlejohn, Theories of
Charles E. Merrill,
1978), pp. 303-20.
81.
Carl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (Read-
ing, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1969).
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
of one individual.
followed by
sists
of an
An
interact involves an act
a response.
A
followed by
act
double interact cona response and then
an adjustment or follow-up act by the
son.
are
Weick
double
believes that
interacts.
all
per-
The executive
the secretary to undertake an activity
asks
(act);
the
secretary then asks for clarification (interact);
and the executive explains (double
interact).
consist
of double
interacts, interlocked
Of course the importance of information and the degree of
make such
situations clearer.
equivocality in the information vary.
Consider an executive and
an example.
a secretary as
first
organizing activities
which
behavior, or communication, are designed to
Or
utive’s asking the secretary a favor
nificant
problem
equivocality. This difference
and the secretary follows through
Weick.
after
which the executive responds with
you (double
interact).
a
thank
Simple? Yes, but these
activities are exactly the
kind that Weick be-
lieves organizations are built on.
Of
occur for their
own
sake. Rather, they
important function, which
is
an
fulfill
the essence of or-
ganizing. Organizing activities
fulfill
tion of reducing the equivocality
is not important to
is that organizing is
accomplished through processes that are developed to deal with equivocal information. The
exact nature of that information is irrelevant to
What
is
important
members engage
the fact that the organization
course interlocked behaviors do not
the func-
of information
received from the environment. Equivocality
is
The execan exam-
that has a great deal of
the executive asks the secretary a favor (act),
(interact),
is
of an insignificant piece of information,
whose equivocality is low; but the example of
solving safety problems illustrates a more sigple
in the processes to
maintain organization. In-
teraction serves to achieve
common
among group members, which
anism by which equivocality
idea
is
We
is
is
meanings
the
mech-
reduced. This
further developed next.
have discussed
how
individuals interact
ambiguity or uncertainty. All information from
the environment, according to Weick, is
to deal with equivocal information from the
environment. But what is the environment?
equivocal; organizing activities are instituted
by
Traditional theories of organization imply that
the members of the organization to make the
information unequivocal. Of course equivocal-
organization. This dualistic notion pits the or-
matter of degree, and the organizing is
done to reduce equivocality in the direction of
ity is a
unequivocality.
Let’s return to the
example of the executive
Suppose the executive receives a direcfrom the firm’s president to solve a problem of plant safety. What is the nature of this
problem, and how should the executive go
again.
tive
about solving it? The answers to these questions
are not clear, inasmuch as the problem can be
defined and solved in a number of ways. In
other words the executive is faced with
equivocal information.
At
this
point
notice that certain
Recall that information
is
a
(Chapter
measure of unfit
in
and that mescommunication reduce the uncertainty.
entity outside the
person’s attention to particular aspects of the
stimuli. People are selective in
any
any
situation,
moment
is
and what
what they attend
is
attended to
at
the environment. Indeed, in-
formation from the environment
is
equivocal
precisely because different people attend to different aspects
terlocking)
saying that organizing activities,
known
were somehow preexistent. Weick has a substantially different idea of environment. Orgaby a mix of
stimuli to which they must respond, but the
“environment” has no meaning apart from
what the individual makes of it. In other words
the environment is a product of the person, not
something outside the person. What makes the
environment salient for the individual is the
sages or
is
a
nizers are always surrounded
certainty in a stimulus situation
Weick
is
ganization against the environment as if each
to in
you probably
notions from information theory
7).
the environment
is
of it. The interaction process (inthe mechanism by which the in-
dividuals in the group reduce this equivocality.
254
.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Hence, environments are not preexistent; they
are enacted by the humans in the organization.
People are continually reenacting their environments, depending on their attitudes, values,
and experiences of the moment.
For example, the executive of our example is
faced with a situation in which interpretation is
necessary. Immediately, he or she will attend to
process that enables the group to admit certain
of the “safety problem.” In enlisting the aid of others, for example the secretary, the executive is beginning processes that
will enable the group to treat the safety problem
as its environment of the moment. To deal with
this equivocal environment, group members
make proposals (acts) to which others respond
the aspects of safety that
certain aspects
(interacts) so that the
initial
ple,
proposers can refine their
proposals (double interacts). For exam-
the executive
check the
tutes a
files
may
ask the secretary to
and reject others. It narrows the field, eliminating alternatives with
which the organization does not wish to deal.
This process therefore removes even more
equivocality from the initial information. For
aspects of information
example, in dealing with the safety problem,
the organization may decide to consider only
trol,
secretary
ing the appropriate
file,
can be assured that the
may comply,
pull-
formation
To continue our example,
may
decide to deal with safety problems that
are caused strictly
it
provide
by machinery,
problem has become much
company knows
has, in Weick’s parlance,
the
ocality
file
bers face a choice point.
the
kinds of decisions.
The
sec-
moment depends on
all
moved from
reenact the
they address the question: Should
the
it
equiv-
mem-
They must make two
The first is whether to
environment in some way. Here
take
of the
ambiguous;
After retention occurs, organization
as follows: re-
how
retary’s activity
less
toward unequivocality.
file (interact),
participants’ behaviors are interlocked.
rejecting
other kinds of problems. As you can see, the
(double interact). Notice
file (act),
body of
the safety group
ates.
so that the executive
of the double interact would be
and review
integrated into the existing
is
information on which the organization oper-
extent of the safety problem. Here the sequence
quest
management can conworker
factors that relate to
tion will be saved for future use. Retained in-
for accident records. This consti-
The
all
The third process of organizing is retention.
Here further equivocality is removed by decision about what aspects of the initial informa-
proposal, an attempt to reduce the
equivocality.
eliminating
predispositions.
some
we
(or
I)
aspect of the environment that
executive’s request, and the executive’s subse-
attend to
quent behavior depends on the secretary’s
was
compliance.
for example, to have the
Weick views organizing as an evolutionary
process that relies on a series of three major
processes: enactment, selection, and retention.
Enactment is the definition of the situation or the
registering of equivocal information from outside. Enactment is a process of attending to
stimuli in such a way as to acknowledge that
equivocality exists. The mere acceptance of certain aspects of the environment removes some
equivocality. Accepting the task of dealing with
safety problems narrows the field for the execu-
check out the rate of accidents that are not related to machinery. The second kind of choice is
whether to modify one’s behavior or actions.
tive so
that
some uncertainty already
removed.
The second process
is selection
Selection
is
rejected before?
Here the question
action than
utive
may
I
The
is:
executive
may
decide,
group go back and
Should
I
take a different
did before? For example, the exec-
decide that solutions for both
ma-
chinery and nonmachinery accidents should be
developed.
So
far this
summary may lead you to believe
move from one process of
that organizations
organizing to another in lockstep fashion:
enactment, selection, retention, choice. Such is
not the case. Individual subgroups in the orga-
is
nization are continually
a
255
working on
activities in
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
all of these processes for different aspects of the
environment. Although certain segments of
the organization may specialize in one or more
of the organizing processes, nearly everybody
undertakes all of them in one form or another
most of the time. Such is the essence of or-
An abstract theory, Weick’s model is not
designed to explain the substance of activity
ganizing.
variety of
Knowing
the evolutionary stages of organiz-
ing helps us see
how
general scale, but this
a
knowledge does not pro-
vide an explanation for
moved from
organizing occurs on
how
equivocality
the information.
To
is
that
one might encounter
to present in a general
in an organization but
way
the
means by which
organizing occurs. In contrast the following
theory is a theory of substance that addresses a
all
communication problems. The two
theories are not inconsistent with
one another;
together they present an excellent system view
of communication in organizations.
re-
address this
problem, Weick outlines two elements that
occur within each of the three organizing processes. These are assembly rules and interlocked
behavior cycles. Assembly rules guide the choice
of routines that will be used to accomplish the
Structural Functionalism.
The
included in this section
Farace,
Their
Peter
is
theory to be
last
of Richard
that
Monge, and Hamish
structural-functional
Russell 82
.
theory (the most re-
cent of the theories in this chapter)
is
an eclectic
process being conducted (enactment, selection,
or retention). Rules are sets of criteria on which
system approach, drawing from the best insights of previous work. Like Weick’s this is
one of the few strictly organizational communica-
organizers decide what to do to reduce equivo-
tion theories.
cality.
rules
is
The question answered by assembly
this: Out of all the possible behavior
cycles in this organization,
now? For example,
which
shall
we
use
in the selection process the
executive might invoke the assembly rule that
“two heads
are better than one” and on this
meeting of plant engineers. Behavior
of interlocked behaviors that enable the group to come to an understanding
about which meanings should be included and
tion or include
which rejected. Thus the safety meeting called
by the executive would enable interested individuals to discuss the safety problem and decide
how to proceed in defining and solving it. Assembly rules and behavior cycles are a natural
part of each of the three processes of organizing. Remember that a behavior cycle consists of
double interacts on the part of participating
group members.
Now we have completed the basic elements
of Weick’s model. They are environment,
equivocality,
enactment, selection, retention,
choices, assembly rules, behavior cycles,
equivocality removed.
and
Weick envisions these
elements working together in
element related to the others.
a
system, each
256
summarized
theories
with communica-
communication
larger theory, but this
approach
as
is
part
of
a
directed en-
explaining communication processes in
organizations. Thus this theory provides an extirely at
cellent capstone for the chapter.
basis call a
cycles are sets
Most other
in this chapter deal indirectly
Although Farace, Monge, and Russell prefer
call their work a theory in the narrow
not to
sense,
tive
it
certainly provides a coherent perspec-
and explanation of communication
in or-
ganizations. This perspective
is consistent with
system theory generally and with other system
approaches to organizations. The authors define
an organization as a system of at least two
people (usually many more), with interdepen-
dence, input, throughput, and output. This
group communicates and cooperates to produce
some end product by using energy, informaand materials from the environment.
One of the most important resources in organizations is information. Using information
theory as a base, Farace and colleagues define
information in terms of the reduction of uncertion,
Richard V. Farace, Peter R. Monge, and Hamish RusCommunicating and Organizing (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1977).
82.
sell,
—
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
As a person becomes able to predict
patterns will occur in the flow of matter
and energy, uncertainty is reduced and information is gained. (This concept parallels that of
semantic information defined in Chapter 7.)
Communication is in part the reduction of un-
AND ORGANIZATIONS
the second dimension.
Among
tainty.
is
which
communication functions
Communication,
certainty via information.
however, also involves the use of common symbolic forms that refer to mutually understood
the variety of
that exist, these au-
thors stress three: production, innovation, and
maintenance. Production refers to the direction,
coordination, and control of activities. Innovagenerates change and
tion
new
ideas in the sys-
tem. Maintenance preserves individual values
and interpersonal relations necessary to keep the
useful distinctions in this theory.
system together.
The third dimension in the framework is
structure. While function deals with the content
of messages, structure deals with the emergent
delineate
patterns or regularities in the transmission of
referents.
At
this point
we
encounter one of the most
The authors
two types of communication, which
correspond to two types of information. Absolute information consists of all the pieces of
messages. For every level in the organization
knowledge present in the system. Thus the totality of communicated information in an orga-
tional
nization
absolute communication.
is
other hand, distributed information
is
On
that
individual, dyadic, group, and organiza-
which
— we may
investigate the
cation functions and
In their
the
in
some
We
how
it is
way communi-
structured.
book Farace and colleagues address
each of the four levels of organizgo over the individual, dyad, and
detail
has been diffused through the organization. The
fact that information exists in an organization
ing.
some
generalities.
does not guarantee that it will be communicated
adequately in the system. Questions of absolute
Actually, the authors incorporate
much of the
information deal with what
of Hisfrihnfion
deal,
practical implication
tion
is
is
know n;
questions
with who knows it. The
of this theoretical distinc-
that “failures in distribution policies are
due to failures by managers to identify which
groups of personnel need to know certain
things, or to establish where these groups are
supposed to be able to obtain the information
group
in the last
this
The key concept
processing the information.
relate to load.
(as dis-
relate
83.
problem
when
areas
the flow
optimally to communication received by
single individuals, these concepts also apply to
organization as a
system of interconnected groups
forming a macronetwork.
At each of these levels of analysis, we can
examine the functions of communication, which
is
Two
Underload occurs
the notions of load, underload, and overload
cussed in Chapter 3) is manifest. Individuals
communicate with others in dyads; dyads clus-
whole
com-
of messages to a person falls below the person’s
ability to process them. Overload occurs when
the load exceeds the person’s capacity. While
individual, dyadic, group, and organizational.
The
related to individual
messages or requests, while complexity is the
number of factors that must be dealt with in
,
ter together into groups.
mac-
is
munication is load. Communication load is the
rate and complexity of information inputs to a
person. Rate is the quantity of inputs such as
framework for orcommunication rests on three
analytic dimensions. The first of these is the
system level which is made up of four sublevels:
of system hierarchy
chapters into their discussion of
such an important contribution of
theory, we will spend more time on it.
ronetwork
structural-functional
principle
two
these levels. Since their discussion of the
ganizational
Here the
highlighting
thinking summarized earlier in this chapter and
they need.” 83
The
will
briefly,
all
a
other levels, including dyadic, group, and
organizational. Thus,
for example,
an entire
organization might be underloaded or overloaded.
The key concept
Ibid., p. 28.
257
applicable to the
dyad
level
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
of communication is rules. Members of dyads
relate according to patterned expectations.
Within organizations there are explicit and im-
to the individual, dyad,
communicating. Such rules conor implicit communication
They tell one how to
communicate, when to communicate, with
whom to communicate, and what to communi-
thors, their
plicit rules for
stitute the explicit
policy of the organization.
Some common
cate about.
the following:
who
delays are treated;
who
selects
dled;
how
how
them;
rule topics include
how
initiates interactions;
what
topics are discussed
how
and
topic changes are han-
outside interruptions are handled;
interactions are terminated;
and
how
fre-
quently communication occurs.
Through everyday
contact between people
in an organization, individuals in groups
We
communication.
the
most
can
and group
move now
levels
of
to perhaps
of these aunotion of macronetwork.
significant contribution
A macronetwork is a repetitive pattern of information transmission among the groups in an
organization.
represents the organization’s
It
Several types of networks
be overlaid upon an organization, each
providing a major function for the organizaoverall structure.
may
tion.
Perhaps the most
network
is
is
commonly understood
the formal organization chart,
which
the prescribed task network. In addition a
number of informal networks may also exist.
Any network consists of two fundamental
parts: the members and their links.
tend to
Links are characterized by five properties.
and communicate together. In
fact, the structure of the overall organization
depends on these groupings. Since people work
The first is symmetry or the degree to which the
members connected by a link interact on an
work,
interact,
together in different groups for different functions, different kinds
a
equally.
may
distinct
member of several
analysis
one
groups. Carrying this
step further,
we must
realize that
Members who communicate more
the organization consists of multiple structures.
For example, structures
may
be built on task
relations, power relations, liking, and others.
We
will return to this idea
structure in a
moment.
of organizational
First, let’s
look
some
at
aspects of individual groups.
The
first,
communication structure or micronetwork,
pattern of interaction in the group.
tion here
is
who communicates
is
is
less
often have
a
who communicate
often have a weaker link.
property of links, is the
which members agree about their
one person believes that he or she often
communicates with another, but the other deReciprocity, the third
extent to
nies
is
is
unreciprocated.
is
the interaction.
the
Is
The
fourth
the predominant content of
communication primarily
about work, social matters, or some other content area? By probing the content of links in a
whom
what kind of power over whom? The
the link
property of links
the
The ques-
with
it,
the
The second kind of structure
the power structure. Here the question
has
stronger link, while those
links. If
First, we note that groups themselves tend to
have internal structures. Farace and colleagues
outline three types of structure.
within the group.
An asymmetric link is one way, with a
information sender and receiver. The
second property of links is strength, which is a
simple function of interaction frequency.
of groups exist in an orga-
nization; a given individual simultaneously
be
,
equal basis. In a symmetrical relationship the
members give and take information relatively
network,
who
third
type of structure stressed in this theory is leaderLeadership structure deals with role dis-
ship.
tribution in the group, specifically the distribu-
of roles related to interpersonal influence of
group members.
We have outlined some key concepts related
tion
258
we
can discern the network’s overall
function. The final property of links is mode.
Here the question is: How is communication
achieved, by what channel? Modes may be
face-to-face conversations, group meetings, or
communication via letter or telephone.
Thus a network consists of members linked
together in various ways to share information.
To adequately understand a network, we must
1
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS III: THEORIES OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
look
the
isolate.
self,
in
we
Before
network
we
roles.
get into the
are able to establish those
the network.
Isolates
some
role
network
who
Of
pects of the
From Communicating and Organizing, by Richard
structure. 84 This
a sensible
Criticism.
at
terms of
These two
theories,
indeed
many
system theories of organizations, are exciting
and quite different from classical and human
Ibid., p. 192.
Linkers:
—
—
Other — 19
Bridges
5,
Liaison
13
V. Farace, Peter R.
Illustration
network
in
communication.
9
Isolates:
True
isolate
Isolated
Monge, and Flamish Russell
of communication network
259
—
—
dyad
1977 by Addison-Wesley. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Figure 11.8.
and
way of looking
organizational structure and function
Group
18
network
concept provides
84.
—
other roles
members who
members of any group, yet they link two or
more groups. Figure 11.8 illustrates these as-
are
groups relatively stable structures.
1
Two
structure: liaison
also are linked to other groups. Liaisons are not
cluster into groups. In
Group
4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Group 2—9, 10, 11, 12
Group 3—14, 15, 16, 17,
of groups and
a series
network
bridge roles. Bridges are group
network terminology a group is characterized
by four criteria: (1) More than half of the
group’s communication is within the group; (2)
each person must be linked with all others in the
group; (3) the group will not break apart with
the exit of one person or the destruction of one
link; (4) the group must have at least three
members. These criteria, as you can see, make
Groups:
is
are interlinked.
are crucial in the
are not
who
those
network thus
members who
is
it-
have no links with
other network members.
linked to others,
One
A
mem-
Organization
at additional factors.
bers take different
roles.
2,
3
(Figure 8-5). Copyright
©
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
relations theory. They are valuable for us
because they stress communication in organiza-
emphasizing the ways transfer of
tions,
information binds elements into holistic organi-
With system theory
zation.
the emphasis
changes from components and structure to relations and interactions. This shift of emphasis is
captured by Weick: “The word, organization,
a
noun and
it is
also a
myth.
If
organization one will not find
found
is
is
one looks for an
it.
What
will
be
that there are events, linked together,
that transpire within concrete walls
and these
ganizational communication,
compared
they cannot be
terms of power or utility. They
in
also illustrate that
and
difficult to pin
system concepts are slippery
down when
to particular observed events.
more
a
way of thinking
they are applied
System concept
than a theory per
is
se.
System theories of organizations have been
criticized specifically for their oversimplifica-
tion of organizations. This objection
because system theory is touted for
posed
is
its
ironic
sup-
wide variety of
an organism. The problem is two
with
ability to deal
variables in
a
sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the
fold. First,
forms we erroneously make into substances
when we talk about an organization.” 85 Thus a
the system claims in regard to an organization,
key strength of most system theories of organization
system theories tend to exaggerate
ignoring aspects of the organization that are not
systemlike. Second, along a similar vein, cer-
is that they are highly appropriate for
studying the nature of the phenomenon under
not
consideration.
calls for a
Still, system theories have been criticized. 86
Although a number of objections have been
raised against various individual system
dress questions such as the following:
theories,
to the
we
two
will look at only those that apply
theories presented. First, however, a
general observation
is
in
order.
from
Recall
Chapter 3 on system theory that a major criticism of general system theory as an approach to
communication is that it is so abstract that it can
area.
The two
little
theory of Farace and his colleagues, however,
looks at how people are grouped into organiza-
by
virtue
of
their
—
“When
boundaries?” 87
The
that such theories therefore should be rejected
tion to the actual activities that can occur.
tional structures
—
of related entities
the standard
of a system act like a system and
when will they not; what conditions tighten
and loosen interdependencies; what conditions
freeze or extend the range of values a variable
will take; what conditions diffuse or intensify
definition
The
problem bet-
Weick’s theory presents a view of the most
general organizing processes, with
tempered approach that would ad-
will a set
atten-
theories chosen for inclu-
sion here could not illustrate this
ter.
fit
problem is that system approaches
enough to explain or to preConsequently they are
not often falsifiable. Most philosophers of science agree that the validity of a theory that is
not falsifiable never really can be known and
87.
be applied in numerous ways, even to the same
theme
downplayed because they do
well into the system paradigm. Weick
tain variables are
information
Although these theories are not inconsistent with one another, they are hardly comparable. Even though both theories are system
approaches, and even though both relate to or-
basic
rarely are specific
dict individual variation.
as
inadequate.
summarized
vidual
For example, both theories
in this section
human
as
downplay
the indi-
an important factor in organi-
links.
zational functioning.
85. Carl
hyperbole of the human relations school about
the role of human needs.
Weick, “Middle Range Theories of Social Sys-
86. Ibid .; see also
or Par-
ticipation:
Calif.:
Sage, 1977).
ahistorical,
is
in part a reaction against the
criticism
is
that these theories are
ignoring the developmental course
Weick, “Middle Range,”
260
interactional structure
emphasized over the needs of the individual.
This quality
Another
tems,” Behavioral Science 19 (1974): 358.
Bengt Abrahamsson, Bureaucracy
The Logic of Organization (Beverly Hills,
is
The
p. 357.
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS
III:
THEORIES OF GROUPS
of organizations. The theories also downplay
the role of power in the organization, suggesting that system outcomes are a natural result of
the mechanism of interactional structure and
not of the influence of individuals and groups.
AND ORGANIZATIONS
group goals are also made
At the
same time groups and organizations, through
the rules, norms, and values that arise in in-
tain supraordinate
achievable through communication.
teraction,
constrain the individual.
membership,
What Do We Know about Communication
in Groups and Organizations?
The
distinguishing characteristic of
cation in groups and organizations
communi-
is
that indi-
become linked into a structure by virtue
of communication. The concept of macronetwork, as presented in the last section, captures
the general idea of this linkage. Dyads become
linked into groups, and groups are linked into
organizations. The most important generalization for our purposes is that the essential
binding element of groups and organizations is
information sharing. Without sending and receiving messages, groups and organizations
would not exist. Further, it is clear that groups
and organizations are constantly being retion.
by continual communica-
Therefore communication can be viewed
as a process
Most
words, causes
Group
a loss
of
otherwise unattainable goals, while paradoxically erecting new barriers that must be
with by the individual.
Communication functions
dealt
viduals
created or sustained
in other
freedom. Communication in groups and organizations makes possible the achievement of
of organizing.
theorists agree that organizations, as
interlinked groups, constitute a system and ex-
in part to enable
people to deal with the task and interpersonal
barriers that naturally arise as part
tion.
Normally individuals
in
of joint ac-
groups and orga-
nizations exert energy to solve problems,
make
or accomplish objectives, but the
concomitant need to relate to others in the
group requires that energy also be directed todecisions,
ward
interpersonal objectives as well. Effective
group functioning can only occur when optimal
levels of task and interpersonal efforts are
reached.
Individuals behave in various ways in groups
and organizations, giving rise to role division.
Roles, including emergent leadership, are established and maintained through communication.
The patterns of communication that occur are
hibit such
largely responsible for individual role behavior.
parts, hierarchy, equifinality, homeostasis,
Part of the role division in groups and organiza-
system qualities as interrelatedness of
and
morphogenesis (see Chapter 3). Most important, the system operates and is sustained
through the passage of information along the
lines of the system network.
Virtually all of the theories in this chapter
stress the functional nature of groups and organizations. In other words the communication
that binds individuals to one another accomplishes certain end results. Group and organizational communication functions both on
of power. Power is
and the locus
of power depends not only on legitimate or
assigned authority but also on information
tions involves the allocation
rarely, if ever, equally distributed,
attribution.
This chapter concludes our discussion of
interpersonal contexts of communication.
the last three chapters
tings. In the
next chapter
In
studied theories
and organizational
we move to the
set-
fourth
mass communication. As you
mass communication is distinguished primarily because of its mediated form.
personal and group levels. Individual needs are
major
met by
will discover,
interaction in the group, groupness
we have
related to dyadic, group,
is
maintained through communication, and cer-
261
setting:
,
CHAPTER
The Mediated
Context:
Theories of
Mass Communication
We
what Marshall McLuhan
Modern communica-
What characterizes the mediated context?
Several writers have discussed mass com-
media make it possible for millions of
people throughout the world to be in touch
with nearly any spot on the globe. The omnipresent media present an important challenge
munication as a concept 3 Most center on
four primary criteria of the mass context.
First, the audiences of mass communication
tend to be large and heterogeneous, and messages tend to be public and open. The second
quality of mass communication is that it is
primarily one way. The audience is anonymous
and impersonal, and feedback is limited. Third,
modern electronic technology makes transmission of information to mass audiences rapid.
Fourth, most mass communication messages
originate from large organizations rather than
calls
are living in
the “global village.”
tion
to students in
many disciplines,
impact of the media
in
for the potential
mind boggling.
is
.
We
live
an environment of constant mass communi-
which we experience hourly and daily.
Yet because we take this environment for
cation,
we may
granted,
have
lost
touch with the
real-
of its influence. The very essence of society
most countries of the world has been affected
by mass communication.
Melvin DeFleur captures the importance of
the study of communication: “No student of
human nature, whatever his disciplinary idenity
in
tion research and theory such as Gerbner’s article. See, for
example, David M. White, “Mass Communications Research: A View in Perspective,” in People, Society and Mass
Communication ed. L. A. Dexter and D. M. White (New
York: Free Press, 1964), pp. 521-46; Walter Weiss, “Mass
Communication,” Annual Review of Psychology (Palo Alto,
3.
Calif.:
Annual Review Press, 1971); Sidney Kraus, “Mass
,
tification or theoretical orientation,
human
can study
behavior without recognizing at the
outset that man’s
as vital to
him
communication processes
as a
human
biological processes .” 1
are
Communication and Political Socialization: A Reassessment of Two Decades of Research,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 59 (1973): 390—400; Wilbur Schramm, Men, Mesand Media: A Look at Human Communication (New
being as are his
George Gerbner adds
sages,
the following: “This broad ‘public-making’
significance of
tions
— the
York: Harper & Row, 1973); James A. Anderson, “Mass
Communication Theory and Research: An Overview,” in
Communication Yearbook I, ed. Brent Ruben (New
mass media of communica-
ability to create publics, define is-
common
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1977), pp. 279-90;
Joseph M. Foley, “Mass Communication Theory and Research: An Overview,” in Communication Yearbook II, ed.
Brent Ruben (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transactions Books,
1978), pp. 209-14; Joseph M. Foley, “Mass Communication Theory and Research: An Overview,” in Communication Yearbook III, ed. Dan Nimmo (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Books, 1979), pp. 263-70; Werner J. Severin
and James W. Tankard, Communication Theories: Origins,
Methods, Uses (New York: Hastings House, 1979); Dennis
K. Davis and Stanley J. Baran, Mass Communication and
Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory and Effects (Belmont,
terms of reference, and
thus to allocate attention and power
has
sues, provide
—
evoked a large number of theoretical contributions. Other theories of mass media have their
origins in political thought,
analysis,
and
social-economic
historical-artistic-literary
schol-
arship .” 2
Melvin DeFleur, Theories of Mass Communication (New
York: David McKay, 1966), p. xiv.
1.
2.
George Gerbner, “Mass Media and
cation Theory,” in
Human Communi-
Human Communication
Calif.:
Theory ed. Frank
Wadsworth,
1981).
See, for example, Theodore Peterson, Jay W. Jensen,
and William L. Rivers, The Mass Media and Modem Society
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965).
Dance (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p.
45. There are numerous short surveys of mass communica-
263
,
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
from
Rogers provides the
distinction between
communication shown
in Table 12.1. 4 Of course, we must be careful
not to separate “public” communication completely from interpersonal channels. While there
are some rather broad and important differindividuals. Everett
summary of
excellent
interpersonal and mass
ences,
helpful to realize that “massness”
it is
matter of degree. For example, mass
cation in the extreme sense
vision
is
a
communi-
illustrated
is
by a tele-
news broadcast, which is less personalized
than reading a specialized article in a journal.
we
Additionally, as
will see later in the chapter,
mass and interpersonal channels
which society is thought of as a large amorphous mass that is influenced as a whole by
mass communication. The alternative approach
is a group mediation model, in which the audience is not viewed as a mass, but as an amalgam
of small groups. These two kinds of thought
are represented in the two sections that follow.
interrelate in
important ways.
Theories of Mass Society
The Mass Society Concept. The theory of mass
society is a concept growing out of the large,
complex and bureaucratic nature of the modern
state. 6 The theory envisions a malleable mass of
people in which small groupings, community
life, and ethnic identity are replaced by soci-
Theories of mass communication are exceedingly difficult to integrate and to organize.
ety-wide depersonalized relations. As William
The
are equally valued as voters, buyers,
says, “All members of mass society
and spectaNumerical superiority therefore tends to
be the decisive criterion of success.” 7 Great
power comes to those who are effective in ma-
Kornhauser
theories chosen for this chapter represent
the mainstream of thought
on mass communi-
cation, although this compilation
is
tors.
necessarily
work in mass
communication relates to the ways in which the
media affect the public, the theories included
nipulating the mass.
here reflect this bias. 5
spread criticism of
incomplete. Since most of the
The
theories
in this chapter are divided into
The
first
two
sections.
section relates to the nature of audi-
ences and the
distributed
ways mediated information is
public. The
among members of the
second section
tions,
The conception of society has led to widemodern life. Critics of the
mass society have suggested several propositions, summarized by Daniel Bell as follows. 8
First, rapid developments in transportation and
communication have increased human contact,
and economic considerations have made people
more and more interdependent. Thus, like a
giant system, imbalance in one part affects
everybody. The catch is that while we are all
summarized
which
is
media effects and funcmost popular research area in
relates to
the
the field.
Theories of Audience and Diffusion
Although the question of how information
6. The most prominent critics of mass society are Jose
Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, Karl Jaspers, Paul Tillich, Gabriel Marcel, and Emil Lederer. The best synthesis
can be found in two critiques of the theory: Daniel Bell,
“The Theory of Mass Society,” Commentary July 1956, pp.
75—83; and R. A. Bauer and A. H. Bauer, “America, Mass
Society, and Mass Media Journal of Social Issues 16 (I960):
is
approached in many ways,
two main kinds of thinking can be isolated. The
first consists of a mass audience approach, in
diffused in society
4.
Everett
M.
is
3-66. Other sources used in the preparation of this section
include Eliot Freidson, “Communications Reserach and the
Rogers, “Mass Media and Interpersonal
in Handbook of Communication, ed. Ithiel
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973), p. 291.
Concept of the Mass,” in The Process and Effects of Mass
Communication, ed. Wilbur Schramm and Donald Roberts
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), pp. 197-208;
and W. Kornhauser, “Mass Society,” in International Ency-
Communication,”
de sola Pool
5.
et al.
For a discussion of other aspects of mass communica-
tion, including the
ways
in
which
society affects
its
media
clopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 10
and the process by which mediated communication operates, see Melvin L. DeFleur and Sandra Ball-Rokeach,
Theories of Mass Communication (New York: Longman,
(New
1968), pp. 58-64.
1982).
264
7.
Kornhauser, “Mass Society,”
8.
Bell,
“The Theory of Mass
p. 59.
Society.”
York: Macmillan,
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
more interdependent, we have become
ingly estranged from one another.
and family
The theory of mass society remains popular
some circles. In the following paragraphs we
two examples of prominent contemporary theories of mass communication
increas-
Community
in
broken and old values questioned. In addition, because society is no longer
believed to be led by the elites, morals, tastes,
and values decline. Rapid changes in society
hurl men and women into multiple role situations, causing a loss of the sense of self. People
become more anxious, and a charismatic leader
ultimately may be required to lift society out of
will review
the abyss.
nology.
ties are
that follow the
mass society approach. Notice
from one an-
that these theories are different
other in content and form, but that they share
common
the
consists
is
assumption that modern society
of a large undifferentiated public that
affected as a
whole by communication tech-
This dismal view has several implications for
munication
may
.
has received acclaim
ideas. At
same time McLuhan has become one of the
most controversial writers in the arena of pop
culture. Whether one agrees with him or not,
style
and
his startling
and impactful
the
his ideas
have received too
much
publicity to be
many
years, writing
ignored.
McLuhan
published for
such books as the Gutenberg Galaxy and The
12.1
between mass and interpersonal channels
INTERPERSONAL CHANNELS
Message flow
He
primarily because of his interesting and bizarre
TABLE
1
be the most popular communication
“theorist” of our time.
9. Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton, “Mass
Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action,” in The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, ed.
Wilbur Schramm and Donald Roberts (Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 557.
CHARACTERISTICS
is
known writer on mass comamong the general public. In fact he
perhaps the best
tural standards .” 9
Differences
McLuhan
Marshall McLuhan. Marshall
media of communication. Critics of
mass society fear that minds will be pounded
and altered by propagandistic forces behind the
media. Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton express this fear: “There is the danger that these
technically advanced instruments of mass
communication constitute a major avenue for
deterioration of aesthetic tastes and popular culthe mass
tends to be
two way
MASS MEDIA CHANNELS
tends to be one
2.
Communication context
face to face
interposed
3.
Amount of feedback
readily
high
low
selective
high
low
way
available
4.
Ability to
overcome
processes (primarily selective
exposure)
5.
Speed
6.
Possible effect
to large audience
From “Mass Media and
Sola Pool et
al.
relatively
slow
relatively rapid
attitude formation
and change
Copyright
©
knowledge change
Communication,” by Everett M. Rogers, in Handbook of Communication,
1973 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Interpersonal
265
ed. Ithiel de
—
,
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Mechanical Bride. 10 However,
munication environment. 12 His later works
consist primarily of a series of articles. 13
Many students of mass communication
and McLuhan himself would agree that his
his mentor, Harold Adams Innis. 15 Both
and McLuhan treat communication media
of civilization, and both see the
course of history as a manifestation of the predominant media of the age. Innis was a Canadian economist and historian. In his most important works, The Bias of Communication and
Empire and Communications he traces the
influence of communication throughout the
works hardly
ages. 16 Innis sees
standing
Media
McLuhan
,
it
The Medium
is
from
was Under-
published in 1964, that brought
to public attention. 11 Later, his
the
Innis
book,
as the essence
Massage provided an interest-
ing exposition of his “probes” about our
com-
,
—
constitute a “theory.” Yet an ex-
amination of his ideas reveals that he does have
a
somewhat systematic
arises as much from what people
have said about him as from his own writings.
Some of this commentary is summarized later
under criticism.
on the public
papyrus, on the other hand, tend to foster
pire building, large bureaucracy,
changed considerably in the
last decade or so of his life. We will begin by
summarizing his earlier ideas, then we will
ideas
move
to his later thinking. 14
ideas
on the
interests.
political authority
a spatial sense.
ings
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
(New
is
13. Implications of Cultural Uniformity,” in Superculture:
American Popular Culture and Europe, C. E. E. Bigsby, ed.
(Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press,
1975); “At the Moment of Sputnik the Planet Became a
Global Theatre in Which There Are No Spectators but
Only Actors,” Journal of Communication 24 (1974): 48-58;
“Communication: McLuhan’s Laws of the Media,”
Technology and Culture 16 (1975): 74-78; “At the Flip Point
of Time The Point of More Return?” Journal of Communication 25 (1975): 102-6; “Misunderstanding the Media’s
Laws,” Technology and Culture 17 (1976): 263; “The Violence
of the Media,” The Canadian Forum, September 1976, pp.
9-12; “Laws of the Media,” Et Cetera 34 (1977): 173-79;
“The Rise and Fall of Nature,” Journal of Communication 27
(1977): 80-81; “The Brain and the Media: The ‘Western’
Hemisphere,” Journal of Communication 28 (1978): 54-60.
have
relied
on
in
.
.
spirit.” 17
W. Carey, “Harold Adams Innis and Marshall
McLuhan,” The Antioch Review 27 (1967): 5-39.
15. J.
16. Harold A. Innis, The Bias of Communication (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1951); Empire and Communi(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950, 1972).
of Bruce Gronbeck,
“McLuhan as Rhetorical Theorist,” Journal of Communication 31 (1981): 117-28; this article clearly summarizes the
differences between McLuhan’s early and later ideas.
I
and the growth of empires
Predating McLuhan’s expound-
this point, Innis teaches that the essence
.
—
14.
on
of Western culture has been shaped by a strong
print or spatial bias. His own viewpoint is expressed as follows: “Mechanization has emphasized complexity and confusion; it has been
responsible for monopolies in the field of
knowledge.
The conditions of freedom of
thought are in danger of being destroyed by
science, technology, and the mechanization of
knowledge, and with them, Western civilization. My bias is with the oral tradition, particularly as reflected in Greek civilization, and with
the necessity of recapturing something of its
York:
1964),
Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, The Medium
the Massage (New York: Banton, 1967).
em-
and military
medium encourages tem-
produce different kinds of culture. The spacebinding effect of writing produces interests in
1951).
11.
as a
which values knowledge and
and supports community involvement
and interpersonal relationships. Written media
:
12.
Speech
tradition
Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy The Making
of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1962); The Mechanical Bride (New York: Vanguard Press,
McGraw-Hill,
ex-
poral thinking,
McLuhan’s early
media of communication stem
10.
as
human mind. He teaches that the
primary interest of any historical period is a bias
growing out of the predominant media in use.
Heavy media such as parchment, clay, or stone
are time-binding, providing a bias toward tradition. Space-binding media such as paper and
tensions of the
outline of propositions
about the relationship between various media
types and culture as a whole. McLuhan’s effect
McLuhan’s
communication media
the synthesis
cations
17.
266
Innis,
The Bias of Communication pp. 190-91.
—
,
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
One
of his predecessor,
gone beyond the ideas
of Innis in discussing the impact of media on
society. In essence McLuhan’s early theory can
be broken down into a few basic propositions 18
McLuhan’s most basic hypothesis is that
people adapt to their environment through a
certain balance or ratio of the senses, and the
primary medium of the age brings out a particuideas and those
McLuhan
but
clearly has
.
McLuhan sees every medium as
some human faculty, with the
sense ratio.
lar
We
can easily see the connection between
McLuhan’s
an extension of
media of communication thus exaggerating this
or that particular sense. In his words, “The
wheel
is an extension of the foot. The book
is an extension of the eye.
Clothing, an
extension of the skin.
Electric circuitry, an
extension of the central nervous system .” 19
Whatever media predominate will influence
human beings by affecting the way they per.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ceive the world.
tribal
people
were primarily hearing-oriented communicators. They were emotionally and interperbelieving.” But the invention of the print-
ing press changed
a
new
The Gutenberg age
this.
sense ratio into being, in
which
McLuhan’s basic premise
about the development of Western culture is
that the nature of print forced people into a
sight predominated.
linear,
tion.
and categorial kind of percepthe use of the alphabet “fos-
logical,
For
McLuhan
tered and encouraged the habit of perceiving
environment
in
visual
particularly in terms
of
and
a
spatial
formation pours upon us, instantaneously and
c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d
quired,
,
19.
McLuhan and
Ibid.
Our
information
electrically
still
is
all
tion.
We
move from the habit of data
mode of pattern recogni-
can no longer build
serially,
block-
Fiore,
(New
York: Dial,
The Medium
is
the Massage.
com-
munication insures that all factors of the environment and of experience coexist in a state of
active interplay .” 22
Thus we come to the main
“The medium is
han’s work:
This catch phrase,
at
thesis
of McLu-
the message .” 23
once curious and thought
provoking, refers to the general influence that a
has apart from its content. Tom Wolfe
it this way: “It doesn’t matter if the networks show twenty hours a day of sadistic
cowboys caving in people’s teeth or twenty
hours of Pablo Casals droning away on his cello
in a pure-culture white Spanish drawing room.
medium
puts
It
doesn’t matter about the content .” 24
And
of course, is where McLuhan parts company from most contemporary researchers in
mass communication. McLuhan claims that the
content of communication is irrelevant. What
really makes a difference in people’s lives is the
predominant media, not content, of the period:
here,
and
and McLuhan.”
ac-
newer
configured world
classification to the
.” 20
ed. Gerald E. Stearn
1957), pp. 56—34; Carey, “Innis
20.
as
very rapidly replaced by
has forced us to
brief summaries of
Hot and Cool
it is
information.
McLuhan’s theory can be
found in the following: Kenneth Boulding, “The Medium”; Tom Wolfe, “The New Life Out There,” in McLuhan:
As soon
continuously.
terms
space and of a time
c,o,n,t,i,n,u,o,u,s
Good
age, though, accord-
.
that are uniform,
18.
new
Electronic technology has
formerly taken for granted 21 McLuhan describes this impact; “Electric circuitry profoundly involves men with one another. In-
sonally close. For the tribal person “hearing
brought
McLuhan.
brought back an aural predominance. The
Gutenberg technology created an explosion in
society, separating and segmenting individual
from individual; the electronic age has created
an implosion, bringing the world back together
in a “global village.” As a result “it is forcing us
to reconsider and reevaluate practically every
thought, every action, and every institution
by-block, step-by-step, because instant
Before printing was invented,
was
have entered a
ing to
“They
21.
are so pervasive in their personal,
Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23.
McLuhan,
24.
Wolfe,
267
Understanding Media
“New
Life,” p. 19.
p. 7.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
political,
economic,
Given
psychological,
aesthetic,
moral, ethical, and social consequences that
they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected,
McLuhan makes
and the
cool
a distinction between the
media of communication. These
makes
dium
concepts are the most confusing and probably
the
most controversial
in his writing.
McLuhan
radio
which
Hot media are
For example,
if a
introduced into
is
tures,
which
are
violent reaction
those that contain relatively complete sensory
data, or
is
from one kind of metremendous stresses in
clear that a shift
to another creates
society.
describes media in terms of the degree to
they involve people perceptually.
of cool media, you can
believes that television
changing the fabric of society. But the advent of
television brings its own problems. McLuhan
unaltered.” 25
hot
his definition
why McLuhan
see
hot
tribal
medium
such
may
as
or nonliterate cul-
accustomed to cool media,
a
occur. Likewise, the reori-
entation required for hot societies such as our
own
high redundancy in the information-
to adapt to the introduction of cool media
such as television has been upsetting.
In Understanding Media McLuhan comments
theory sense. With hot media the perceiver has
need to become involved by filling in missing data. McLuhan refers to hot media as low in
participation. Hot media, because they give us
less
on
several media.
The following
quotations
highlight his ideas:
somnambulism
population. Cool media, on the other
everything, create a dulling or
in the
Speech:
Language does
hand, require the individual to participate
perceptually by filling in missing data. This participation creates healthy involvement.
It is
involvement. Language extends and amplifies
but it also divides his faculties. His collective
consciousness or intuitive awareness is diminished by
this technical extension of consciousness that is
man
ticipation or
Speech acts to separate man from man,
and mankind from the cosmic consciousness 27
speech.
.
Television, on the other hand,
provides the viewer with only a sketch through
the illumination of tiny dots. Perceptually the
in
crucial, for
between these visual dots. In
must become involved per-
McLuhan
sees
point of impact on society.
it
as a
it,
.
Repeatability
and the cooling of
all
26.
the core of the mechanical principle
dominated our world especially since the
Gutenberg technology.
.With typography, the
principle of movable type introduced the means of
mechanizing any handicraft by the process of segmenting and fragmenting an integral action. What
.
senses tends to
result in hallucination.” 26
25.
is
that has
“So
the hotting-up of one sense tends to effect hypnosis,
is a
Print:
is
fundamental
As he puts
.
unique technology. There
have been many kinds of writing, pictographic and
syllabic, but there is only one phonetic alphabet in
which semantically meaningless letters are used to
correspond to semantically meaningless sounds. This
stark division and parallelism between a visual and an
auditory world was both crude and ruthless, culturally speaking; ... it is the result of the sudden breach
between the auditory and the visual experience of
man. Only the phonetic alphabet makes such a sharp
division in experience, giving to its user an eye for an
ear, and freeing him from the tribal trance of resonating word magic and the web of kinship 28
could say that the film has high redundancy,
fill
.
The phonetic alphabet
low information.
ceptually with the stimulus. This distinction
.
The Written Word:
not required perceptually to fill in anything. In
an information-theory sense (Chapter 7) we
short the viewer
what the wheel does
less
im-
McLuhan’s use of parinvolvement does not refer to the
degree of interest or time spent attending to a
particular medium of communication. Rather
he refers to the completeness (hot) or incompleteness (cool) of the stimulus. Film, for
example, is considered to be a hot medium
because the image projected on the screen is
complete in every detail. The viewer of a film is
portant to realize that
viewer must
for intelligence
and body. It enables them to move from
thing to thing with greater ease and speed and ever
for the foot
McLuhan, The Medium is the Massage.
McLuhan, Understanding Media, p. 32.
27. Ibid., pp. 79-80.
28.
268
Ibid., pp.
83-84.
.
.
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
had begun with the alphabet as a separation of the
multiple gestures and sights and sounds in the spoken
word, reached a new level of intensity, first with the
woodcut and then with typography 29
Media forms do not cause but bring out
modes of thought that are already present in the
The problem occurs when the indiperson.
individual.
.
is not familiar with the patterns of
person-environment relationships depicted in
media. The lack of consonance between the
vidual
Film:
The
between the
close relation, then,
reel
world of
film and the private fantasy experience of the printed
word is indispensable to our Western acceptance of
the film form.
.
.
with book culture
individual’s perceptual categories
tions
its reel form and in
completely involved
Film, both in
.
scenario or script form,
its
is
30
.
shift in
most people intimately, person-toperson, offering a world of unspoken communication between writer-speaker and the listener. That is
the immediate aspect of radio. A private experience.
environments.
The
Jacques Ellul.
affects
subliminal depths of radio are charged with the
resonating echoes of tribal horns and antique
drums
believe that people are active creators in their
much
lectivism.
.
work
background.
as
to be with
it.
.
.
.
The
It
cool
engages you.
TV medium
promotes depth structures in art and entertainment
alike, and creates audience involvement in depth as
well.
There is scarcely a single area of established
relationships, from home and church to school and
market, that has not been profoundly disturbed in its
pattern and texture 33
.
.
.
McLuhan’s teachings changed
substantially. In his earlier works he strongly
implies that the form of media in society affects
or causes certain modes of perception on the
part of society’s members. In his later teaching
In the 1970s
he seems
Instead,
with or
He
takes a holistic approach,
much less
McLuhan
reflect the
certain
of
this causal link.
says that media resonate
perceptual categories of indi-
all forces of society interact and
mass system from which the individual cannot escape. At the center of this
theory is the concept of technology, or la
technique. The evils of mass society arise because
of technology and its amoral, lifeless, emphasis
on efficiency above all else. Society’s primary
problem is that, despite the illusion to the contrary, individuals do not make critical choices
based on individual values. They are prevented
from doing so by the system, which creates
uniformity and thoughtless compliance.
In contrast to the amorality of the technological society, Ellul points to the original goals of
democracy. True democracy is not possible,
however, because technology has subverted in-
create a giant
dividual
of envisioning a causal link between media and personal perception, he later
saw a simultaneous outpouring of certain kinds
of thought on the part of the media and the
viduals. Instead
human
choice.
The
vehicle through
which the technological society perpetuates the
mass society is propaganda Ellul redefines propaganda to include all mechanisms, intentional
and unintentional, that constrain individuals.
As Conrad Kellen remarks in the introduction
29. Ibid., p. 160.
30.
of
claiming that
will not
.
critics
Jacques Ellul. 34 Ellul has
to say about
as education.
,
Television:
You have
of today’s foremost
is
mass communication and
the media of communication, but he does not
separate the two from other social forces, such
32
.
One
the mass society
31
.
The power of radio to retribalize mankind, its almost instant reversal of individualism into col-
TV
and the depic-
stress in society.
McLuhan’s later years involves a
change in ontology. Whereas he once saw the
human being as a passive responder, he came to
Radio:
Radio
of the media creates
This
Ibid., p. 286.
34.
For an excellent brief summary see Clifford G. Chrisand Michael R. Real, “Jacques Ellul’s Contributions to
Media Theory "Journal of Communication 29 (1979):
31.
Ibid., p. 299.
32.
Ibid., p. 304.
Critical
33.
Ibid., p. 312.
83-93.
tians
269
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
book: “The principal difference between his thought ediface and most other literature on propaganda is that Ellul regards propaganda as a sociological phenomenon rather than
as something made by certain people for certain
purposes. Propaganda exists and thrives; it is
the Siamese twin of our technological socito Ellul’s
distinction
political party to bring about
change in the actions of the public. Sociological
propaganda is more difficult to define, for its
purpose is to integrate individuals into the
mass, to unify group behavior; it arises not
from the top of the societal structure but from
within it. A second distinction can be made
between agitation and integration. Agitation is
highly visible and calls attention to itself. Usually it is subversive and is utilized by opponents
of the primary order. Propaganda by integration, on the other hand, attempts to stabilize
and unify. One may also distinguish between
As implied in this quotation, Ellul sees
propaganda as a universal phenomenon of
technological society. Furthermore, he takes the
fact essential, in
The
ganda
modem
necessary, in
societies.
technological system requires propa-
keep individuals in
in order to
individuals rely
Thus
is
on
it
as a
line,
and
source of security.
the media are not channels of information
used by individuals as a basis for
ing, but a
critical
means of propaganda
and horizontal propaganda. Vertical
propaganda is the classical type, in which the
leader or group at the top attempts to affect the
masses below. Horizontal propaganda originates from within the group and spreads in
lateral fashion. Finally, one may distinguish between rational and irrational propaganda, although Ellul points out that propaganda is becoming increasingly rational and almost always
is based on facts.
vertical
think-
that creates
general uniformity throughout society by re-
moving
individuals from their cultural founAs Ellul puts it: “What these media do
what propaganda must do in order to
dations.
is
exactly
propaganda cannot exist without these mass media .” 36 In using
attain its objectives. In reality
the media of communication, the propagandist
must organize and coordinate the involvement
of different kinds of media much as a composer
uses a keyboard to write a symphony.
Ellul sees
propaganda
Several conditions are necessary for the
spread of propaganda.
As already mentioned,
it
succeeds in societies that have a dual massindividual character. As society moves toward
as necessarily ubiqui-
must pervade
between political and sociological
propaganda is employed by a
government or
ety .” 35
point of view that propaganda
is
types. Political
and it must continue for
long periods of time. Since propaganda must be
based on the public sentiments and opinions of
common group bonds that formerly held people together begin to break up.
In a modern mass culture the individual is apt to
find oneself alone face to face with the entire
the day to effect the action for
mass: “Precisely because the individual claims
tous and continuous.
It
massness, the
the indi-
vidual’s daily routine,
which
37.
it
aims,
must be familiar with the
psychological and sociological tenor of the authe propagandist
dience.
Along
the
same
line
be equal to all other individuals, he becomes
an abstraction and is in effect reduced to a cito
pher .” 37 People are thus susceptible to propaganda only after being cut off from their refer-
propaganda must
be timely in order to mesh with the thoughts
and feelings of the average person.
Once this separation happens,
once people lose their roots, they become more
ence groups.
Several kinds of propaganda are found, according to Ellul. He expresses these in terms of
distinctions
between opposing types. The
manipulatable.
In
first
mass society public opinion plays an imWhen channels of information are
portant role.
35.
Conrad Kellen, “Introduction,”
—
The Formation of Men’s
Knopf, 1965), p. v.
Propaganda
36. Ellul, Propaganda
,
in Jacques Ellul,
Attitudes
(New
people receive common information and thus take common positions.
institutionalized,
York:
p. 9.
Ibid., p. 90.
270
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
Ellul believes that public opinion
is
always
The
that
common
propaganda
This
fact
is
is
true,
ion; alienation
necessary in
modern
propaganda
is
ous needs and
in a
democracy,
a
society.
The masses
is
that
is
—
ac-
political
/
some of
sociopolitical efc
Today
ideology as
has been in the past.
ical
it
(a
it
is
not the voice of an
nonbeliever,
More
often
really)
uses
including unions, religious groups, polit-
parties,
national lines,
and international
blocks.
for propaganda,
are
can promote
fects as well.
levels,
.
need
Here
It
although disassociation can result
Propaganda thus affects public opinion by crystallizing it, by simplifying, by separating private and public opinion, and by mobilizing
public opinion to action. Another sociopolitical
result of propaganda is the partitioning of subgroups in society, creating various we-they
confrontations. This separation occurs on many
.
it.
can create as well
ideologies as a tool to manipulate the public.
more: in democracy, the citizens must be
tied to the decisions of the government. This is the
greatest role propaganda must perform. It must give
the people the feeling
which they crave and which
satisfies them
to have wanted what the government is doing 39
state’s
It
guilt.
Propaganda may promote
the propagandist
is
Aside from the
It
produce
Propaganda has important
are there; they are interested in
the individual needs
can create self-justification,
also
tivism or withdrawal.
government
correct 38
—
surrounding propaganda,
effects.
may
it
too.
The government cannot act without them.
So what can it do?
Only one solution is possible: as the government
cannot follow opinion, opinion must follow the government. One must convince this present, ponderous, impassioned mass that the government’s decisions are legitimate and good and that its foreign
But there
effects
correctly perceived the picture Ellul
as ease tension.
cohesion,
politics.
policy
psychic disassociation
self;
produces opposite
but
a necessity
honest, serious, benevolent, and respects the voter
cannot follow public opinion. But it cannot escape it
either.
from
intended to paint. Propaganda simultaneously
is
of the government. The following quotations
illustrate this point of view:
Ergo: even
the
of public opin-
of thought from action (uncritical behavior);
perpetuation of the need for propaganda. If you
have detected an inconsistency among the vari-
you have
startling conclusions
dis-
Among
length in Ellul’s treatise.
tallization or the solidification
according to the theorist, on
several grounds. First,
at
psychological effects are the following: crys-
information.
most
propaganda are
actual effects of
cussed
number of individuals receive the
same information, they will react in similar
ways. Propaganda requires two basic conditions: loss of group identification and mass reEllul’s
com-
important and involved.
feel
that a large
One of
simplifies these
life. It
ways that make the world more
understandable to humankind. Propaganda
combats loneliness. It promotes feelings of involvement and meaning to common people.
Propaganda boosts self-esteem, making people
plexities in
Other conditions are required for propaganda to succeed. The most notable is literacy.
Propaganda cannot succeed in societies that do
not have the educational base of Western cultures. Since propaganda relies on the manipulation of symbols and the development of stereotypes, the population must have a high degree
of receptivity to verbal messages. To the extent
ceptivity to
of modern
plexities
a
step away from reality. The mass media, for
example, allow the propagandist to structure
“reality” in consistent ways.
The idea of mass society has been
rather severely criticized 40 Clearly the biggest
Criticism.
the
.
functions propaganda serves for people:
It
vides psychological support in facing the
38.
Ibid., p. 126.
39.
Ibid., p. 127.
pro-
problem with this idea is that it oversimplifies
the nature of society. Consequently the claim
that the mass public is at the mercy of those
com-
40.
271
Bell,
“The Theory”: Bauer and Bauer, “America.”
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
who
control the media has been refuted re-
peatedly by empirical research in mass
nication effects.
The
theories have had little impact or heuristic value
social sciences. Although many ideas
worth pursuing may be found in the work of
such theorists as McLuhan, Ellul, and others,
researchers have not been open to investigating
these ideas, precisely because of their dogmatic
and negative nature. Now let us turn our attention to McLuhan and Ellul specifically.
McLuhan is in a world apart. His theory is
not only unorthodox but is rarely classified
with other theories of a certain genre. However, to the extent that McLuhan conceives of
media as affecting society in a general way
without discriminating various kinds of effects
among different groups, he must be considered
among the critics of mass society. His ideas are
commu-
in the
mass media
topics of
mass society in general are comof mass society is
newer concept of the audience as a complex
mediator between media and effect. Raymond
influence and
plex. In contrast to the theory
the
many atphenomenon
Bauer, in observing the failure of
tempts
at
persuasion, refers to this
as the obstinate audience.* 1
He denies
the idea that
hypodermic needle effect operates between communicator and audience. Instead,
a direct
many
variables involved in the audience interact
ways. 42 (Many of
were discussed in Chapter 8.)
of the more important areas of audience
mediation are group or interpersonal effects and
selectivity. Studies have shown that audience
members are selective in their exposure to in-
to shape effects in various
these dynamics
Two
formation. 43 In
its
simplest
almost impossible to
this
form the hypothesis
not constitute
proach, while agreeing that certain effects occur, denies the mass-sheep effect commonly
to
in
a
treatment and does
theory in the standard sense.
Therefore his scholarly stance is somewhat oracular;
like the priests of Delphi he produces messages that
can be interpreted in different ways but do stimulate
thought and in many cases have considerable impact
on the people who consult the oracle 44
the next section.
clear
using standard
The reason for
work is mostly an
listed:
of view is further elaborated
by the multistep flow hypothesis, presented in
feared. This point
work
that his
commentary about the man. To give an idea of
the variety of comments that have been published about McLuhan, several quotations are
Thus in opposition to the theory of
mass society, the social-psychological ap-
of mass society tend
is
Yet there has been no lack of criticism and
reference.
As critical or norapproach fails to provide a
understanding of the actual variables at
difficulty
artistic-historical-literary
of selective exposure predicts that people in
most circumstances will select information consistent with their attitudes and other frames of
In addition the critics
criticize
categories of theory criticism.
.
concentrate on the negative.
A man
mative theory
ability to cross
this
like
McLuhan
has wit, erudition, and the
not only academic
fields,
but fields in
Consequently these
community and the academic. He
has a fund of history and a sense of tradition which
few possess these days. He represents a willingness to
Raymond A. Bauer, “The Obstinate Audience: The
Influence Process from the Point of View of Social Communication,” American Psychologist 19 (1964): 319-28.
confront the present and yet not to reject the past.
Yet he often approaches this area with the stance of a
huckster, the techniques of a propagandist, the
advanced
societies.
the professional
41.
42.
Raymond
Bauer,
Communication, ed.
“The Audience,”
Ithiel
de sola Pool
et al.
in
Handbook of
(Chicago:
strategies
of a con
man 45
.
Rand
medium and to mix
McLuhan books are the skyrocket
McNally, 1973), pp. 141-52.
Again, to vary the
the metaphor,
Studies on selectivity are well summarized in David O.
Sears and Jonathan I. Freedman, “Selective Exposure to
the
that
43.
Information:
A
came out
Schramm, Men, Messages, and Media, p. 125.
45. Donald F. Theall, The Medium Is the Rear View Mirror:
Understanding McLuhan (Montreal: McGill University Pre-
44.
Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly
31 (1967), reprinted in Wilbur Schramm and Donald F.
Roberts, The Process and Effects of Mass Communication (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971).
Critical
ss,
272
1971), p. xvii.
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
of this ferment, and one feels almost that if one lit a
match they would soar up into the sky and explode
into a thousand stars. 46
His writing
deliberately antilogical: circular, repe-
is
titious, unqualified,
gnomic, outrageous.47
There are people whose fate it is to be read in this
spirit: not because of what they have to say, which is
meager or foolish, but because of the bleaker measure they provide of their society’s quality of mind
and conscience. And it is in this spirit that Marshall
McLuhan must be approached: as one who has little
that
is
substantial to say but
who
reveals a very great
deal about the cultural permissiveness of
mid-
literature on rhetoric and communication is an
act not unlike taking on Hercules’ Hydra; each
blow one strikes for propositonal clarity requires two qualifications and a simultaneous
assault on at least eight other conceptual quag-
mires.
would
ing
am
many
writes about himself:
our culture is regarded as invited as
long as he stays in one fixed position. Once he starts
moving around and crossing boundaries, he’s delinquent, he’s fair game.
The explorer is totally inconsistent. He never
knows at what moment he will make some startling
discovery. And consistency is a meaningless term to
apply to an explorer. If he wanted to be consistent, he
I
stay
in
home.
don’t explain
This
last
.
—
.
I
difficult
—
using his ideas
explore,” expresses the
51
.
ideas are useful for stimulating a
little
guidance on
how
to understand the
They
are valu-
of
do not give a
able in that they point to the importance
media forms
in society, but they
criticism so
of the variables involved in the
of media forms. In sum Kenneth Bouldis perhaps typical of very
creative minds that they hit very large nails not
quite on the head .” 52
Ellul can hardly be compared with McLuhan. In contrast to McLuhan’s ambiguous,
probing technique, Ellul’s works are of a single
mind and clearly expressed. However, he shares
the faults of the critics of mass society spelled
to use art as evidence,
out earlier in this section. Basically his tenet that
realistic picture
effects
ing points out: “It
.
quotation captures the qualities of
that
— the tendency
I
process of mass communication.
explore 49
McLuhan’s writings
comment, “I
main
humanists). McLuhan’s
McLuhan’s
an investigator. 1 make probes. I have no point
I do not stay in one position.
would
McLuhan all but defies conceptual
You can see why such an approach
fresh look at the subject matter, but they pro-
of view.
Anybody
.
reason social scientists have such difficulty
vide
I
.
frustrate social scientists (while delight-
don’t explain
century America. 48
McLuhan
.
synopsis .” 50
make
the use of aphorisms or catch phrases in place of
technology
and the quality of being
inconsistent and ambiguous. McLuhan’s goal
often seems to be to stimulate thought rather
than to make clear claims. Bruce Gronbeck relates the frustration of many critics: “To enter
the world of Marshall McLuhan with a view to
clearly defined terms,
is
reductionistic.
at
He
the base of
all
tends to ignore
plex issues and variables of social
social
ills
is
many com-
life
in favor
of
an overly simple view of mass society. His in-
volvement of propaganda as the central concept
of communication is an unfortunate usage. It is
probably invalid to imply, as Ellul does, that
the negative connotations attached to the term
evaluating his contributions to the theoretical
propaganda apply equally well to
Kenneth Boulding, “The Medium is the Message,” in
McLuhan: Hot and Cool, Gerald Steam, ed. (New York:
all
forms of
46.
public communication in society.
The
Dial, 1967), p. 57.
47.
George
P.
Elliott,
“Marshall McLuhan: Double
Agent,” in Steam, McLuhan,
positive contribution of the critics of
mass society is that they provide an important
alternative view to the approach normally taken
p. 67.
Theodore Roszak, “The Summa Popologica of Marshall McLuhan,” in McLuhan: Pro and Con, ed. Raymond
Rosenthal (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968), p. 257.
48.
49.
Steam, McLuhan,
p. xiii.
273
50.
Gronbeck, “McLuhan,” pp. 117-18.
51.
Steam, McLuhan,
52.
Boulding, “The Medium,”
p. xiii.
p. 68.
:
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
by
social scientists. Typically social scientists
through discussions with peers. For example,
seem to be more
take an administrative or pragmatic approach to
Lazarsfeld found that voters
media research. Their aim is to understand how
media work so that media can be better used.
The social scientists’ methods attempt to be
influenced by their friends during a campaign
objective. Little insight
is
adherents to the two-step flow theory describes
of the media. In conapproach allows consumers to
into the values or failings
trast the critical
ask the question:
media
How
are
both
critical
It was a healthy sign, they
that people were still most successfully persuaded by give-and-take with other people and that
the influence of the mass media was less automatic
and less potent than had been assumed. For social
theory, and for the design of communication research, the hypothesis suggested that the image of
modern urban society needed revision. The image of
the audience as a mass of disconnected individuals
hooked up to the media but not to each other could
not be reconciled with the idea of a two-step flow of
communication implying, as it did, networks of interconnected individuals through which mass communications are channeled 56
for a democratic society.
felt,
and pragmatic ap-
and Michael Real state of Ellul: “Unwilling to
hide behind the mask of pseudo-objectivity, he
steps into the value vacuum of academic
analysis with ‘must’ and ‘should.’ In being prehe reduces the
gap between the theory and action.” 53
scriptive as well as descriptive,
Theories of Diffusion
The Two-Step Flow. In 1940 a classic voting
study was conducted by Paul Lazarsfeld and
New
.
This view expounds the supremacy of the small
group
although unconfirmed, implied a possible
strong involvement of interpersonal communicommunication process.
This effect, which came to be known as the
cation in the total mass
was
tional data
have come
in,
much
concept of opinion leaders
community who
media and pass
cial,
and the hypothesis
53.
facilitate
ship
leaders
in
Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and H. Gaudet, The
(New York: Columbia University Press,
that
ion,
The best summary of this hypothesis is Elihu Katz,
“The Two-Step Flow of Communication,” Public Opinion
Quarterly 21 (1957): 61-78. A more recent treatment is Katz,
55.
issue
Sills
it
differs in
and public
is
56. Katz,
Interpersonal Influence,” in International En-
David
The opinion
it is
conceived
as a
of interpersonal
important aspect is that
opinion leadership changes from time to time
and from issue to issue. Katz and Lazarsfeld find
1948).
cyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 4, ed.
others.
hard to distinguish from
a trait. Instead,
communication.
Christians and Real, “Jacques Ellul’s Contributions,”
III:
groups: occupational, so-
all
is
role taken within the process
People's Choice
“Diffusion
not
is
the
communication
p. 92.
54.
the
is
in the
from the
Opinion leaders
other group members, because opinion leader-
hypothesized that information flows from the
mass media to certain opinion
to their peers.
it
community, and
leader typically
— individuals
receive information
are distributed in
addi-
has received substantial support. 55 Lazarsfeld
community, who
in society.
Personal Influence 57 Central to the theory
and it had
a major impact on the conception of mass
communication.
startling,
Since the original Elmira study,
More
recently it has been
shown that small groups interconnect in a web
of networks running throughout the “mass.”
The two-step flow theory is best summarized in Katz and Lazarsfeld’s classic work,
York. 54 The re-
searchers found an unexpected occurrence that,
two-step flow hypothesis,
contradicts the earlier mass society idea:
considerable interest. The
authors themselves were intrigued by its implications
proaches are necessary. As Clifford Christians
his colleagues in Elmira,
it
The hypothesis aroused
communication
falling short in serving society? In the
overall picture
One of the most prominent
than by the media.
how
provided, though,
An
such areas as marketing, fashaffairs.
Interest in a particular
certainly an important determinant
“Two-Step Flow,”
of
p. 61.
Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The
Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications
57. Elihu
(New
(New
York: Macmillan, 1968).
274
York: Free Press, 1955).
.
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
opinion leadership, but leaders can be influential
when
only
interest
is
shared by
all
members of
the group.
a variety
any case the implication
In
is
groups
that
provide the key for mass communication influThey do this by providing direction to the
ence.
individual in terms of opinions, attitudes, val-
and norms. Groups also give ready access
communication.
In recent years most theorists have moved to
the newer multiple-step model of diffusion 58
The multiple-step model is similar to the twostep hypothesis; it simply admits to more com-
ues,
to
.
plex possibilities. Research has
number of
ultimate
and
final receivers is
shown
that the
between the media
variable. In the adoption of
relays
an innovation, for example, certain individuals
will hear about the innovation directly
from
media sources, while others will be many steps
removed.
However, the basic concept of opinion leadership remains unchanged. Everett Rogers and
Floyd Shoemaker provide a list of theoretical
generalizations about opinion leadership, which
should help round out this theory for us.
Opinion leaders have greater exposure
than their followers.
Opinion leaders
lowers.
.
Opinion
.
.
.
to
issues .” 60
The Diffusion of Innovations.
.
.
.
.
followers.
.
.
.
When
leaders are
from
a
from person to person within a single
Several prominent American and foreign
areas or
area 61
.
researchers have been responsible for this line of
research.
The
broadest and most communica-
tion-oriented theory
and
is
that
of Everett Rogers
his colleagues 62
.
Rogers began his theory by relating it to the
process of social change in general. Social
change consists of invention, diffusion (or
communication), and consequences. Such
change can occur internally from within a
group or externally through contact with outside change agents. In the latter case contact
may occur spontaneously or accidentally, or it
may result from planning on the part of outside
mass media
their fol-
.
social participation than
are
social status than their
more innovative than
agencies.
their fol-
.
norms favor change, opinion
more innovative, but when the norms are
60.
Ibid., p. 224.
61.
For a general summary see Torsten Hagerstrand, “DifII: The Diffusion of Innovations,” in International
fusion
the system’s
traditional, opinion leaders are not especially
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 4, ed.
(New York: Macmillan, 1968).
innova-
David
Sills
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York:
Free Press, 1962); Rogers and Shoemaker, Communication of
Innovations', Everett M. Rogers and Ronny Adhikarya,
62.
tive 59
.
One of the best summaries of this extension can be
found in Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker,
Communication of Innovations, A Cross-Cultural Approach
(New York: Free Press, 1971), chap. 6.
58.
59.
diffusion of an
idea spreads
.
Opinion leaders
.
most
our un-
point of origin to surrounding geographical
.
Opinion leaders have higher
The
when an
innovation occurs
.
their followers.
the
tion research in rural agriculture, developing
nations, and organizations.
leaders have greater change-agent contact
Opinion leaders have greater
One of
fruitful theoretical areas contributing to
derstanding of diffusion stems from the innova-
.
more cosmopolite than
are
than their followers.
lowers.
Opinion leaders may be of two kinds: those
on one topic and those influential on
of topics. These types have been called
monomorphic and polymorphic It has been hypothesized that monomorphism becomes more
predominant as systems become more modern.
“As the technological base of a system becomes
more complex, a division of labor and specialization of roles result, which in turn lead to
different sets of opinion leaders for different
influential
“Diffusion of Innovations: An Up-to-Date Review and
Commentary,” in Communication Yearbook III, ed. Dan
Nimmo (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979),
pp. 67-82; Everett
Ibid., pp. 218-19.
M. Rogers and D. Lawrence Kincaid,
(New York: Free Press, 1981).
Communication Networks
275
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
Diffusion of innovations
ing process.
Many
years
time-consum-
usually occur in this last category, although op-
be required for an
tional decisions can be rapid also. Collective
decisions are probably the slowest. Figures 12.2
and 12.3 illustrate the differences between col-
is
may
a
idea to spread.
Rogers states, in fact, that one of
the purposes of diffusion research is to discover
the means to shorten this lag. Once established,
an innovation will have consequences, be they
functional or dysfunctional, direct or indirect,
manifest or latent. Change agents normally expect their impact to be functional, direct, and
lective
and authority decision processes. 64
The diffusion process just described may appear linear, seeming to occur in discrete steps or
stages over time. Rogers now criticizes this
linear view,
showing
that the diffusion of innothan he previously thought.
manifest, although this outcome does not always occur.
The diffusion of innovations depends on
four broad elements: the innovation, the com-
his objections to earlier notions are
presented in the criticism section that follows.
munication, the channels, the time.
direction, concentrating
tion
mary mechanism
An innovaany new idea in a social system. The
perceived newness of the idea is what counts,
not its objective newness. Any idea perceived as
new by the citizens of the community applies to
is
this process.
Rogers’s views on communication
vations
is
less linear
Some of
His
thinking
later
is
in a
somewhat
different
on networks as the priAlthough mass
for change. 65
communication channels may play significant
roles in diffusion, interpersonal networks are
most important. Networks
are more than a
simple information linkage between opinion
channels and opinion leaders already have been
summarized in the previous section. To review
leader and follower,
us note that Rogers sees the diffusion process
occurring through both mass and interpersonal
understand ideas and the degree to which ideas
are accepted and modified depend in large mea-
let
channels.
sure
The innovation-decision process consists of
the four stages outlined in Figure 12. 1. 63 This
network. Interaction
diagram lists three important interacting determinants of the rate of diffusion. First, the
people within a system have certain attributes,
including personality, social characteristics, and
needs. Second, the social system itself relates
significantly to the process
of decision. Third
of innovations.
of innovation
There
are three different sorts
their neighbors. Physicians,
among whom con-
new drug,
are required.
The
made by
force.
The
fastest rates
third kind
that individuals modify innovations as part of
adoption. Another insight is that innovations
are often sought out or created in the system
Communication is a convergence of meaning
achieved by symbolic interaction. The adoption, rejection, modification, or creation
is
a
product of
of an
convergence
this
makes
of
symbolic interactionism, system theory, and
network theory, which were covered in previ-
regard-
of decisions made by their peers. On other
kinds of issues, such as water fluoridation, coldecisions are authority decisions,
along the links in the
process. Rogers obviously
less
lective decisions
individuals
is important, for diffusion
appears to be a product of give and take rather
than the simple sending and receiving of information. One new insight of this approach is
innovation
siderable diffusion research has been conducted,
or that
interaction
implied in the
How
injected into a
decisions. The first is the optional decision.
Farmers, for example, may grow any kind of
corn they wish, regardless of the practice of
may decide to use this
on the
is
without the intrusion of a change agent. It is a
fallacy to think that an innovation is simply
system and adopted or rejected.
are the perceived characteristics
63.
which
flow models just described.
liberal use
ous chapters of this book.
of
or decisions
Criticism.
of adoption
Beginning with the work of Paul
of diffusion
Lazarsfeld, the research and theory
Rogers and Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations
64. Ibid., pp. 276, 305.
p. 102.
65.
276
Rogers and Kincaid, Communication Networks.
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. from Communication of Innovations by Everett
F. Floyd Shoemaker. Copyright
1971 by The Free Press, A Division of The Macmillan Company.
©
Figure 12.1. Paradigm of the innovation-decision process.
277
M. Rogere and
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
has been immensely successful. Dennis Davis
of the two-step flow (and
and Stanley Baran remark of Lazarsfeld: “If one
person deserves the title of founder of the field of
mass communication research, that person is
flow) in the diffusion of information and innovation was a mainstay of mass communication
Paul Lazarsfeld.
termine the
way
No
in
one has done more to dewhich theory and research
methods would be developed to aid our understanding of mass communication.” 66 The work
of Lazarsfeld and his successors has been
influential in guiding our thinking about the
process of mass communication. The parsimony of these theories has enabled observers
to deal with a huge and complex phenomenon
with relative ease. Additionally, these theories
have been highly heuristic and have produced a
large body of research. For many years the idea
66.
1.
Davis and Baran, Mass Communication
,
p. 27.
later multiple-step
theory, but diffusion theory
change and
is
is
undergoing
quite unsettled at the present
time. 67
Much criticism of diffusion research and
theory arose in the 1970s. Generally, this criticism relates to the simplicity and consequent
lack of explanatory power of these theories.
now believe that these theories cannot
adequately explain the complexities of diffusion
Critics
processes.
We have realized for some time that diffusion
does not follow
a strictly
two-step process, but
the logic of the two-step flow
67.
is still
a
standard
Rogers and Adhikarya, “Diffusion.”
stimulation of interest in the
need for the new idea (by stimulators)
2.
initiation of the new idea in
the social system (by initiators)
3.
legitimation of the idea
(by power-holders or legitimizers)
4.
DECISION to act (by members
of the social system)
5.
action or execution
of the new idea
Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. from Communication
of Innovations by Everett
F. Floyd Shoemaker. Copyright
1971 by The Free Press, A Division of The Macmillan Company.
©
M. Rogers and
Figure 12.2 Paradigm of the collective innovation-decision-making process. The collective innovation-decision-making
process is usually conceived as five or more steps or subprocesses from original realization
of a needfor the new idea
(stimulation) tofinal action or carrying out the
on community decision making
.
.
.
,
but
new
it
idea in the social system This conception has mainly evolvedfrom research
should be generally applicable to most other types of social systems, such as
.
bureaucracies, committees,
278
and families.
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
explanation. In this explanation diffusion
as a process
is
seen
of spreading information or innovafrom media to opinion
tion in a linear fashion
leader to
steps
is
members of the
public; the
ess. This logic does not explain enough, however. Research has not consistently supported
notion of how diffusion occurs. At times
media appear
to inform the public directly,
1.
with little interpersonal involvement; at other
times different forms of diffusion are revealed.
that for the most part diffusion
Rogers believes
2.
this
the
knowledge about
lowers
number of
considered irrelevant to the basic proc-
3.
a network-oriented process. The strict
dichotomy between opinion leaders and folis
is
overly simple.
The problems of this
It
linear
model
are
many.
tends to be one-way, implying a unidirec-
of information and one-way causation. The implication that information and
influence flow neatly from one person to another is not supported by research, which inditional flow
good deal of two-way interaction is
involved in the spread of information. Further,
cates that a
the
one-way model suggests
that receivers are
the need
for change and the innovation
4.
persuasion and evaluation of
the innovation
decision unit
5.
by the
Decision-making phase
decision concerning acceptance
or rejection of the innovation
by the decision unit
communication of the decision
to adoption units in the
organization
Decision-implementation phase
action or implementation of
the decision: adoption or
rejection of the innovation
by the adoption unit.
Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. from Communication of Innovations by Everett
1971 by The Free Press, A Division of The Macmillan Company.
F. Floyd Shoemaker. Copyright
©
Figure 12.3. Paradigm showing functions in the authority innovation-decision process.
279
M. Rogers and
,
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
dependent on information sources,
tuality individuals in the social
when
group
applied to any kind of communication,
in ac-
are in-
often
it is
most
applied to mass communication. In-
terdependent. In the give and take of everyday
deed, mass communication effects, the
conversation,
people exchange information,
it, argue about it, and come to a shared
understanding. Another problem with the
ment
question
researched topic in mass communication in the
model of diffusion is that it downplays
but the actual circumstances under
which diffusion occurs may have a great deal to
do with the pattern of dissemination used by
individuals in sharing information and innova-
In the preceding section
context,
models of media-audience
linear
model
linear
models tend
as
on the outcomes of this dissemination.
The theory of mass communication effects
has undergone a curious evolution in this cen-
Rogers
is more a matter of convergence or the achievement of shared meaning
than of strict influence.
points out, diffusion
tury. Early in the century researchers believed
earliest
effects. Individuals
and best-known theorists of
is Harold Lasswell.
mass communication
Lasswell, a great political scientist of our time,
wrote an
“The
Function of Communication in
article entitled
Structure and
which the public
considered to be heavily influenced by media.
the powerful-effects model, in
is
Whom
This
Effect.
This model outlines the basic elements of
communication that have received the most research attention. Although this model can be
Harold D. Lasswell, “The Structure and Function of
in Society,” in The Communication of Ideas,
York: Institute for Religious and
Social Studies, 1948), p. 37. For information regarding
Lasswell’s contribution to political science, see Arnold A.
68.
Communication
ed.
that these effects are
search in the 1970s, scholars have returned to
What
Which Channel
Says
With What
members but
mediated by audience variables and are therefore only moderate in strength. Now, after re-
Who
In
hypothesis was popular, media effects were
considered to be minimal. Later, in the 1960s,
we discovered that the media have effects on
audience
Society.” This
1948 treatise presents the simple and oftenquoted model of communication: 68
To
“magic bullet” theory of communication
were believed to be directly
and heavily influenced by media messages. In
other words media were considered to be extremely powerful in shaping public opinion.
Then, during the 1950s when the two-step flow
in the
Communication Effects and Functions
One of the
how
dissemination, this section focuses
to stress influence rather than
Yet,
discussed the
functions of media communications in society.
While the last section stressed the process of
simplistic
will be inconsistent. Additionally,
interpersonal understanding.
we
relationships:
audiences receive information and influence.
Here we cover more specifically the effects and
tions. Since context creates variability in diffu-
on the
model, has been the most-
last fifty years.
linear
sion patterns, research based
in Lasswell’s
last ele-
Lyman Bryson (New
Rogow,
ed., Politics, Personality, and Social Science in the
Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D. Lasswell
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), especially the
following articles: Heinz Eulan, “The Maddening Methods
later research centers
on
television as the
powerful medium. 69 The theoretical basis of
this research is still under development, and for
the most part theorists remain with the modmodels of the 1960s. Among the
most prominent theories of mass media effects
erate-effects
and functions are reinforcement theory, agenda
setting, uses and gratifications, and the dependency model. We will consider each of these
in turn.
For information on the powerful-effects model, see
Noelle-Neumann, “Return to the Concept of
Powerful Mass Media,” in Studies of Broadcasting ed H.
Eguchi and K. Sata (Tokyo: The Nippon Hoso Kyokii,
69.
Elisabeth
of Harold D. Lasswell: Some Philosophical Underpinnings,” pp. 15—40; Bruce Smith, “The Mystifying Intellectual History of Harold Lasswell,” pp. 41-105.
1973), pp. 67-112.
280
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
The Reinforcement Approach
torted.
Early empirical research on the reinforcement
ess
approach integrated most clearly by Joseph
Klapper in The Effects of Mass Communication 7°
uals are influenced
Klapper, in surveying the literature on mass
communication
develops five broad
effects,
generalizations or theoretical propositions:
1
Mass communication ordinarily does not serve as a
necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects, but
rather functions among and through a nexus of
.
mediating factors and influences.
2.
These mediating factors are such
render mass communication
cally
that they typia
contributory
agent, but not the sole cause, in a process of reinforc-
ing the existing conditions.
3.
On
such occasions
.
.
.
mass communication does
as
function in the service of change, one of two conditions
a.
the mediating factors will be found to be inoperative
they are sensitive to audience needs,
a profit,
likely to exist. Either:
is
and the
effect
of the media
will be
found to be
or
direct;
b.
Another mediating variable in the procof reinforcement is group norms. Individby the groups to which they
belong; hence, mass persuasion will be mediated by group interaction. This idea was well
developed in the multiple-step theories of diffusion, as we have seen. A third broad mediating
variable is the process of dissemination itself.
Following the lead of earlier researchers such as
Katz and Lazarsfeld, Klapper points out the
interpersonal nature of mass media dissemination. Along the same line, opinion leadership
also influences the effects of mass media. Finally, Klapper lists the nature of media in a free
society as an intervening factor. Because media
are commercial enterprises carried out to make
which normally favor reinbe found to be themselves impel-
the mediating factors,
forcement will
ling toward change.
and they attempt to utilize preexisting attitudes
and opinions in their appeals. In short the tendency of media to reinforce rather than convert
may result from a number of interacting variables.
It
There are certain residual situations in which mass
communication seems to produce direct effects, or
directly and of itself to serve certain psychophysical
4.
is
possible for attitude change to occur,
particularly
when group norms and
other intra-
audience factors are already conflicting.
The
third generalization in Klapper’ s synthesis
is
functions.
5.
that predictable antecedent conditions
The
efficacy
of mass communication, either
as a
contributory agent or as an agent of direct effect, is
affected by various aspects of the media and
communications themselves or of the communica-
pany
ditions
ence
tion situation. 71
The
tempts
first
is
mass media probably tend
titude change occurs at
be inoperative, and the second
all,
it
The
first
is
to the
as follows:
personality
The
Joseph T. Klapper, The
(Glencoe,
111.:
be avoided or dis-
Effects of
occur are itemized
trait.
fifth generalization is that
are influenced
and situational
71.
may
group norms, reduced
personal influence, and high persuasibility as a
it seems, attend to and recall
information that supports existing views. Un-
may
who
topic.
an abatement of selective processes,
conflicting or reduced
tention. People,
sympathetic material
the neutrals,
number four relates directly
previous one. The situations in which
direct persuasive effects
the
audience predisposition, which causes selective
exposure, selective perception, and selective re-
70.
that
is
Generalization
will probably be
of these
among
do not hold previous opinions on the
is rare. This reinforcement
probably caused by a number of in-
teracting variables.
of these precon-
that the mediating factors in the audi-
particularly noticeable
to rein-
minor; conversion
is
first
sure toward change. Such direct effects will be
that persuasive at-
force existing attitudes in the audience. If at-
effect
is
may
The
the mediating factors themselves created pres-
generalization
in the
attitude change.
accom-
by
a
tions dealt primarily
Mass Communication
mass
effects
number of media, message,
The previous generaliza-
factors.
with factors
in the audi-
ence; this final proposition alerts the reader to
Free Press, 1960).
the presence of mediating factors in the source.
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
281
.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
message, and situation. Such factors include
source credibility, media credibility, message
public.
organization, two-sided versus one-sided pres-
idea
entations, repetition,
and so
have the potential for structuring issues for the
One of the first writers to formalize this
forth.
writing, his speeches, and his social
tic
The reinforcement approach, which
Criticism.
is
time
a definite step in the right direction at the
it
was
theory,
in
vogue. Compared with the bullet
the reinforcement approach
would
inhibit
media
tant mediating variables,
environment but
as
to a
he describes
it,
pseudoenvironment
“the pictures in our
model interposes an image
between the audience and the actual environment: “For the real environment is altogether
too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct
acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with
audience and situation ripe with mediating vari-
The resome impora more
effects.
search in this tradition did identify
the
or,
heads.” 74 Lippman’s
viewed
mass communication as more complicated than
had previously been imagined. It envisioned an
ables that
com-
mentary. 73 Basically, Lippman takes the view
that the public responds not to actual events in
often referred to as the limited-effects model,
was
was Walter Lippman, a foremost American
Lippman is known for his journalis-
journalist.
much
so
completing
subtlety, so
much
variety, so
many
And
permutations and combinations.
al-
elaborate puzzle than had previously been con-
together
structed.
have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before
we can manage with it.” 75
The problem of the limited-effects model is
it maintained a linear,
cause-to-effect
paradigm for research and theory. 72 It failed to
we have to
act in that
environment,
we
that
In recent years the agenda-setting function
has been most completely described by
Donald
Shaw, Maxwell McCombs, and their colleagues. 76 In their major work on this subject,
on the media
or the ways that individuals might affect the
process. The model remained one of active
media and passive audience. In addition the
limited-effects model concentrated almost exclusively on attitude and opinion effects, ignoring other kinds of effects and functions. Finally,
true to past tradition, such research focused on
short-term effects of mass communication
without questioning whether repeated exposure
or time latency might affect the audience.
72. During the 1960s and 1970s scholars
attempted to overcome these difficulties. In the
later period we can see an effort to expand the
notions of communication effects and to assess
take into account the social forces
Shaw and McCombs
write about the agenda-
setting function:
Considerable evidence has accumulated that editors
and broadcasters play an important part in shaping
our social reality as they go about their day-to-day
task of choosing and displaying news.
This im.
pact of the mass media
— the
.
.
ability to effect cogni-
change among individuals, to structure their
thinking
has been labeled the agenda-setting function of mass communication. Here may lie the most
important effect of mass communication, its ability
to mentally order and organize our world for us. In
short, the mass media may not be successful in telling
tive
us
—
what
to think, but they are stunningly successful
us what to think about
77
functions other than direct audience effects.
in telling
One of the most
M. Childs and J. Reston, eds., Walter
Lippmann and His Times (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959);
Phillip L. Bright, “The Speaking of Walter Lippman as a
Critic of the New Deal,” (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Washington, 1968).
popular areas of research centered on the agenda-setting function of mass
73.
communication
The Agenda-setting Function
74. Walter
Writing on the agenda-setting function is not
new. Scholars have long known that media
lan, 1921).
and Tankard, Communication Theories,
Lippmann,
75.
Ibid., p. 16.
76.
Donald
L.
p. 249.
77.
282
Ibid., p. 5.
Public Opinion
Shaw and Maxwell
Emergence of American
Criticism of the reinforcement approach can be found
in Severin
.
See, for example,
(New
E.
York: MacMil-
McCombs, The
Political Issues (St. Paul:
West, 1977).
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
In other
words agenda
setting establishes the
salient issues or images in the
This theory obviously
lic.
is
minds of the pubapplicable to polit-
campaigns; consequently, nearly all research on agenda setting has used campaigns as
ical
public.
how
The model
setting occurs because the press
must be selective in reporting the news. The
news outlets, as gatekeepers of information,
make choices about what to report and how to
report it. Therefore, what the public knows
about the state of affairs at any given time is
largely a product of media gatekeeping. Fur-
variable, degree
frequently an item
of emphasis,
is
reported.
Evidence suggests that the public generally
ranks an issue as more important when it has
been discussed frequently in the media.
case studies.
Agenda
The next
relates to
ing variables,
Audience
some audience mediat-
includes
shown on
interest
the right of the figure.
and knowledge is one such
we know that how a person votes is determined mainly by what issues the individual
believes to be important. For this reason some
ther,
researchers have
come
to believe that the issues
may
reported during a candidate’s term in office
have more
paign
effect
on the
election than the
cam-
itself.
Figure 12.4 depicts the key variables in the
agenda-setting process according to
and Shaw. 78 The
events and issues
first
as
McCombs
variable consists of the
they actually occur. These
events provide a sea of possibilities for the reporter. Certain events naturally are defined as
news; others have
a
narrower chance of being
selected. Selection, or
ond
news
choices,
is
the sec-
variable in the model. Journalists experi-
ence strong pressures from their teachers, their
and their peers to look for certain kinds
of events for reporting. In fact news media
editors,
often agree about the important events and
sues
on which
istic
standards are strong.
The
is-
to report, indicating that journal-
third variable, type
of news media,
also
plays a role in the agenda-setting function. For
example
seems to have a short-term
agenda-setting effect, while newspapers are
television
slower, but longer lasting, in their effects.
The
type of story, the fourth variable in the model,
shapes the nature of the information communicated.
The way
the information
is
presented
Reprinted by permission from The Emergence of American
Political Issues
and the placement of the story (for example,
front page) affect the salience of an item for the
78.
McCombs,
by Donald
L.
Shaw and Maxwell
E.
© 1977 West Publishing Co. All rights
reserved.
Figure 12.4.
Ibid., p. 21.
283
The
agenda-setting process.
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
public in terms of the issue agenda. Perhaps
variable. Typically, the greater the interest in an
issue
and the
less the
knowledge about
it,
Figure 12.4 could be improved by having an
arrow going back from social knowledge and
behavior to the media variables that purportedly affect agenda setting.
The two theories explained above the reinforcement approach and agenda setting are of
the direct-effects tradition. Another way effects
have been viewed is the functional approach.
Here the question is not. How are people affected by the media? but, What personal and
social functions are fulfilled by the media? In
reality agenda-setting research lies on the border between effects and functions. Agenda set-
the
higher will be the need for orientation on that
Audience need for orientation will lead to
greater media exposure and to more interpersonal communication about related events.
Probably those people who are more isolated
from others will be more directly influenced by
the media in terms of issue salience. The outcome of the agenda-setting process is a kind of
issue.
—
consensus on issue importance, which constitutes social
“We
knowledge. As David Shaw
states:
known the press is a meswe are just beginning to obtain a
of how that messenger himself can
always have
senger but
glimpse
shape the message and, perhaps, in
a
small
and largely unconscious way help shape our
common social destiny. That glimpse, of
course, is the major challenge of agenda-setting
research.” 79
referred to as a function, but to the extent
ting
is
that
media
affect issue salience in the
does not center on one-way cause-effect but
looks to the system as a whole in terms of how
functions.
theories that
were thought
to be minimal. Second,
interact to achieve
The next
Criticism.
ing for
effects
tradition.
its
Early Functional Theories
and opinion change adds a badly needed dimen-
One of the
salience as a
media
The
effect
is
idea of issue
functions
problem with
that although the theory
is
this line
of work
it
is
clear in positing a
between media and issue salience,
the research evidence on this point is not convincing. 80 Research has uncovered a strong correlation between audience and media views on
the importance of issues, but it does not demonstrate that media choices cause audience salience. In fact one would argue that the emphasis given to issues in the media is a reflection,
not a cause, of audience agendas. This is a
chicken-egg issue.
is
A more
likely possibility
formal treatments of media
of Harold Lasswell, whose
is
presented earlier in the
work
is
paradoxical because
implies a linear process of mass
tion,
yet
it
also
communica-
presents a set of functions
by mass communication, which are not
81.
easily classed as causal effects. Lasswell
identifies three functions of the media of communication. These are “surveillance of the environment” (knowing what is going on), “correlation of the parts of society in responding to
the environment” (having options or solutions
for dealing with societal problems), and “the
transmission of the social heritage of one
generation to the next” (socialization and
causal link
79.
that
chapter. Lasswell’s
basic
that there
earliest
was
simple linear model
intriguing and
important.
The
system
three sections present
within this functionalist
fall
focus on cognitive effects rather than attitude
sion to effects research.
minds of
agenda setting is also an effect.
Generally speaking, the functional approach
individuals,
media and society
The agenda-setting theory is appealtwo reasons. First, it returns a degree of
power to the media after an era in which media
—
fulfilled
is
education). 81
an interaction between media and
Ibid., p. 29.
of this work can be found in Severin and
Tankard, Communication Theories, pp. 253-54.
80. Criticism
284
Charles Wright has expanded on Lasswell’s
model. Starting with Lasswell’s three basic
Lasswell, “Structure and Function.”
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
functions, he developed a twelve-category
One
model and a functional inventory for mass
communication as shown in Figure 12.5 and
Table 12. 2. 82 The model is set up as a question,
proach
probing the various functions and dysfunctions
of mass-communicated messages. Such functions are broken down according to social
levels. The skeleton provided by the basic functional
model
is
filled
in,
the questions an-
swered, on the inventory. In Figure 12.5
a
number of
we
see
functions and dysfunctions of
of the criticisms of the functional apin general
is its
inherent ambiguities in
regard to explanation. Although the following
two
do not solve this problem, they
toward providing a different kind of
theories
take a step
explanation than that found in effects research.
Uses and
Gratifications
Approach
In recent years, there has
been growing
dissatis-
faction with the direct-effects theories outlined
earlier.
The problem
is
that this
approach
is
Lasswell’s categories according to social level.
primarily linear, positing a causal relationship
Notice that Wright added a fourth function,
from message to effect. This model takes the
form message-audience-mediating variableseffect. Perhaps the paradigm is backward. The
approaches we will summarize in this section
and the next abandon the message-to-effect
model in their search for other explanations.
entertainment, to Lasswell’s
list.
Lasswell’s three functions and
Wright’s elaboration of this theory have been
Criticism.
quoted frequently in the literature on mass
communication. They provide an excellent
simple outline of some functions and dysfunctions of mass communication. As such they are
a useful pedagogical device. However, one
must stretch to call this work theoretical in the
standard sense because it does not help us understand when and how these various functions
and dysfunctions operate. They constitute a
good observational aid but are not powerful for
The
uses and gratifications approach focuses
on the consumer, the audience member,
rather
than the message. This approach begins with
media comviewpoint different from that
the person as an active selector of
munications,
which
83.
The
a
sees the person as a passive receiver. 83
material for this section
comes from Elihu Katz,
Communication,”
Jay Blunder, and Michael Gurevitch, “Uses of Mass Communication by the Individual,” in Mass Communication Research: Major Issues and Future Directions
ed. W. Phillips
Davidson and Frederick Yu (New York: Praeger, 1974), pp.
11-35. See also Jay Blunder and Elihu Katz, eds., The Uses
of Mass Communication (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1974). See also the entire issue of Communication
20.
Research 6, January 1979.
,
explanation.
82. Charles R.
Wright, “Functional Analysis and Mass
Public Opinion Quarterly 24 (1960): 605—
1.
What
are the
2.
3.
4.
manifest [intended] and
latent [ unintended]
functions and
dysfunctions
5.
surveillance (news)
6.
7.
correlation (editorial activity)
cultural transmission
8.
entertainment
of mass-communicated
9.
for the
society
10.
subgroups
11.
individual
systems?
12. cultural
From
Public Opinion Quarterly, “Functional Analysis and Mass Communication,” by Charles R. Wright. Copyright
Reprinted by permission of Public Opinion Quarterly and the author.
Figure 12.5.
Wright’s functional model.
285
© 1960.
£
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
3
3
tS
.2
h
(-<
t4_»
3U
3o 3u
W
‘3
-T3
ft
C/5
o
S3
10
3
5
6
o
u
m
^
to
to
D
ab
w
Z
o - _l
<
«u
%
03 5 b
W
^0
Q
tn 6 s
z u
w cS
y
o Oh
o
3
cd
3
bO
Oh
>
77
£
£ ^
2 <2
^
o
£ 77
8
O 2
S u
N 8
3
3
£|
Oh
<U *T3
3
e S
£ £
c
bO
«
2 >
3
2 o
3
O o
’3
1/5
a
s
3 Oh
O
Ih
I
.
O >n
3
3 £
<u O
r>
C/5
C/5
<D
CJ
hflr /5
bfic/5
<u
Q
C.
U «u
w
^
p p
Oh
£ 3 Oh
^
S|c5&
£ u 52 -3H 2 pj
.§
^
O
*C 3h
•3
(L>
Oh
‘5
M4
cd
.
O
33
-O
cd
bQjji
73
2 -B
c «
s -
3
-Q
3
3
rjJ
C/5
~a
>
..
g
ca
Bi
<<
a
In
3 3
4-»
S
C
u
77
£3
bfi
77
C/5
—05
£ 0
O
S
C/5
ft
2 5
*73
55
.2
3
> O
•£
rt 1
;
H
t
a
*rl
§
3
.2
4H
03
CL>
S3
t-t
s*
• Oh
7j
X
s
w
Q
4>
h
a
a,
3
£
a*
M
£ S
60
a .J5
u 3
S
a>
.
.
a>
~o
ft
bcft^
C3
gf
H
t/5
a>
w-
bO H
3 2
3
I
-S
|
^
^
.
13
c
o
3
O
2
O
‘3
C/5
S'. 2
V5
ns
X >
30
<
fi
jg
3 C
<
>.'S
3-30o
^
•rt
O-i
N
05
.
Oh. 3
*g
^
Ju
I
.5
to
cm
*->
rt
Oh
m
^
<Z
.2
t5
‘o
£U ^3
Overstimulation
Privatization
J8
S3
«
-o
>H
«
«
•>
«£^
Anxiety
W5
Impedes:
g<
£
o
*n
’O
c
.3
O
3
o
-3
*5
<L>
i
cd
60
C
cm
h
"
"O
£
...
bb
"2 i<
x.a s £
'?
sz<
P
C
<L>
a
3
s
•§
o 3
3 -3
O
O .3
c
<U
C/5
£
IE
™ 3
!
oJ
bfi
-
c/5
u.
M4)
S % O
si
7
^
o
J2
-C
4->
W
H
c
O
U
..
3
O
panic
.a
33
JD
O
C/5
'T3
s
8 «
O
Oh
u
Oh
:e^
ts
2
<
cd
"O
V
w
^
cd
O
r->
O £
u §
</5
3
’O
•FN
w
.S
,
*-*
cd
o
*->
3
3
£
§
S
-S
T3
C/5
3
rt
2 ~
3
O «w
H3
-T3
2 c
05
O
3
C/5
«
3
3
*rt
3
<3
3 2
? a
52
TH tu
c
3H
•
c
<*
V5
0/
cd
-n 33
5
<
u 3
3
ri cm
286
rt
J-
Impedes
stability
Apathy
'
MEDIATED CONTEXTS: THEORIES OF MASS COMMUNICATION
growth
C/5
o
•n
>p
<u
-G
cultural
•c
rt
^
<D
*-*
c/5
c
^
G
u
3
i
3#
G 3
Impedes
<L>
G5
<U
2
e*
o
responsibility
o S c
£ SP.2
®
O
rt
a,
^
C/5
<q
^S
S S 0
Increases
X
w
<*-
iJ
O
rt
g
o
a
u
rt
W
c
o
s
E
faculties
_o 3
o
o
G o
O o
..
passivity
G
.2
.2
o
.£
3 a
•S
Weakens
Increases
t/i
2
•
CM
«
"c/s
3
a
^3
c
rO
G
</5
C/5
<L>
4>
^
O N
Ui *3
« 3
O O
G G
^
S J2.8
§ g 9
C/5
T3 'G
<u
^
<
G
£O
Q
PS PS
Gh
C/5
E2
1)
2
cs
O
a>
i—
P-(
i
>S
G 3
change
o
S.2 i
O
g
O
-G u
O
O
g 13 ^
is
a
(Q
u
nl
*->
con-
08
social
criticism
C/5
flj
c/5
s|
5s
Increases
formism:
if
&
—
vi
^
•53
cd
>
<3
G 43
O *G
W5
rt
C/5
avoided
>
1»
nj
6
G
_C
.9
g
G
.a
O
P6
UG^
C/5
u
^
^
fc
<U
««
C/5
2
E
G u
'G
O -Q
"
3
social
fi
GN ^
<->
social
Impedes
*4
fi
G
-G
^
O
O
c/5
•w
G o
60
1/5
G
C/5
O
G ^
O ,0
M-l
<
T3
.t;
•rj
u
u
CS
2o
tx
.>
C/5
3o
>
<
cd
T3
•O
wcdo
*-*
<d
•
u
O
M
•N
G
latent)
G
3
S
"O
G
and
G
is
T3
T3
G
pfl
52
G
C/5
5
<
on
-S
1
G
c 2
1
£
^
<5 *g
^
SC
*C/5
o<£
u 'E
c/5
cd
5
s
2 G
g
O ra
Dysfunctions
(manifest
.
C/5
critical
G 2
<«
G
r?
287
9.
C/5
g G
rt
O
’a->
*-»
CJ
c/5
G c£
G
<+S
SC
«d
qI
CONTEXTUAL THEORIES
The
basic stance
is
summarized
as follows:
figure
Compared with
classical effects studies, the uses and
approach takes the media consumer
rather than the media message as its starting point,
and explores his communication behav