Comm. 1510-01
Mon & Thurs, 4:00 to 7:50 p.m.
Russell Sage Laboratory 4510
Introduction to
Communication
Theory
Lecture 4
Prepared for Prof. Carlos G. Godoy, PhD, Esq. by Matt Rolph
People
• Do you have a best friend?
– Is it easier to communicate
with that person?
• How about someone who
irritates you?
– Is it tougher to communicate
with that person?
• Can it be easier or more
difficult to communicate
with family? More difficult
with a boss?
“Step Brothers” (2008)
Relationships
• Communication happens in
relationships of many kinds,
like those at work, in class, or
in a family.
• Cause-and-effect models of
communication can’t easily
explain the complexity of
relationships and the way they
affect communication.
Not
• A cause and effect chain:
a -> b -> c -> d
• Instead, a relationship
x = b2 +
2a
---a
– 5d
In other words, complicated.
Interactional View
Chapter 13
• Individual behavior is better
understood as part of a
system.
• Family system:
– A self-regulating,
interdependent network of
feedback loops guided by
member’s rules; the behavior
of each person affects and is
affected by the behavior of
another. (Griffin p. 170)
Paul Watzlawick
1921-2007
Interactional View
Family Homeostasis
• The tacit collusion of family members to maintain the status
quo; in other words, the way a group collaborates, sometimes
unconsciously, to keep things stable – even if they don’t
consciously want to.
• One explanation involves a ‘symptom strategy’ – explaining
the silence using semi-reasonable excuses, i.e. I am too tired
for that today.
Axioms of Interpersonal
Communication
• One cannot NOT
communicate.
• Communication = Content +
Relationship
• The nature of a relationship
depends on how both
parties punctuate the
communication sequence
• Communication is either
symmetrical or
complementary
• Communication always
includes more than the
meaning of the words or
message
Symmetrical v. Complementary
• Symmetrical interchange is based on equal
power, whereas complementary
communication is based on differences of
power.
• Healthy relationships include both kinds of
communication.
The Interactional View
• Axiomatic description (with corollaries ) of
communication as a system.
• Emphasizes issues of control, status, and power.
• Relationships are assessed through an exchange of at
least two messages
Rogers and Farace
• Coding system
categorizes control in
ongoing marital
interaction.
• Bids for dominance
do not necessarily
result in control of
the interaction
One Up
• Seeks to
control
One Down
• Yields
control
• Neutralizes
One Across control
The Franklin Family
• A “disturbed family system”
• The Franklin family (p. 169 in
Griffin)
– Sonia – the concert pianist (and
mom)
– Stan – the man at work (and dad)
– Laurie – honors student
(responsible sister)
– Mike – the problem child
Olympic athlete
Michael Phelps -probably not the
image he hopes
you’ll remember
The Simpsons
• Early episodes in particular feature family
themes
• “Bart the Genius” (Season 1: Episode 2)
• Clips:
• http://www.hulu.com/watch/29524/the-simpsonsscrabble#x-4,vclip,94
• http://www.hulu.com/watch/29527/the-simpsons-aptitudetest-cheater#x-4,vclip,94
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6qPVWhPUX0
Trapped with no place to go …
– Family systems are highly resistant to change.
– Double binds are contradictory demands on
members of the system.
– The paradox of the double bind is that the highstatus party in a complementary relationship
insists that the low-status person act as if the
relationship were symmetrical.
Changing the game …
• … by changing the rules:
– Destructive rules can be changed only when members
analyze them from outside the system.
– Reframing is the process of altering perspective and
looking at things in a new light.
– Accepting a new frame means rejecting the old one.
– Adapting a new interpretive frame usually requires outside
help.
A Critique
•Proposed adjustments to the
Interactional View
•Not all nonverbal behavior
is communication – in the
absence of relationship and
intentionally shared code,
nonverbal behavior is
informative rather than
communicative
Janet Beavin Bavelas
A Critique
•Proposed adjustments to the
Interactional View
•A “whole message model”
integrates verbal and
nonverbal communication.
•The term
metacommunication should
be reserved for
communication about
communication
Janet Beavin Bavelas
Limits of System Theories
• Apply well to multivariate systems, but …
– Systems theories involving people are difficult to
evaluate because of equifinality—a given
behavioral outcome could be caused by various
interconnected factors.
– Equifinality: In the study of systems, the recognition that
different initial states can lead to similar end states; the
property of allowing or having the same effect or result
from different events
Influence
• Influence research focuses on communication
strategies that elicit behavioral compliance.
Attitudes
• Attitudes are internal responses made us of
the ways people think, feel, and intend to act.
– Cognitive: What do you believe?
– Affective: What does your heart say?
– Behavioral: What do you plan to do?
1
2
3
Strongly Disagree Slightly
Disagree
Disagree
4
5
6
7
No
Opinion
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Example of a 7-point Likert semantic differential scale
Social Judgment Theory: Ch. 14
• Three Latitudes
–Acceptance
–Rejection
–Noncommitment
Muzafer Sherif
1906-1988
Example
Acceptance
The location and width of each
interrelated latitude may vary a
great deal from person to person
Noncommitment
Rejection
Ego Involvement
• Refers to the importance of an
issue to an individual.
• The favored position anchors
all other thoughts on a topic.
• Features of high-ego
involvement:
– Noncommitment nearly
nonexistent
– Rejection latitude is wide.
– People who hold extreme views
care deeply.
Judging the Message:
Contrast and Assimilation Errors
• Sherif theorized that we use our own anchored
attitude as a comparison point when we hear a
discrepant message.
• People “cold” to an idea who hear a message on that
topic perceive contrast – even a slight disagreement
seems large and the message is rejected.
• Contrast: A perceptual error whereby people judge
messages that fall within their latitudes of rejection
as further from their anchor than they really are.
Judging the Message:
Contrast and Assimilation Errors
• Sherif theorized that we use our own anchored
attitude as a comparison point when we hear a
discrepant message.
• People “hot” for an idea who hear a message on that
topic that is aligned with their view accept it even
when there are good reasons not to do so.
• Assimilation: A perceptual error whereby people
judge messages that fall within their latitudes of
acceptances as less discrepant from their anchor
than they really are.
Attitude Change
• According to social judgment theory, we
judge each received message, comparing
it to our anchored position – this is the
first stage in attitude change.
• In the second stage, we shift our anchor
in response to the message.
• Sherif thought that both stages take
place below the threshold of
consciousness.
Discrepancy and Attitude Change
• How much our attitude changes – how
much our anchor shifts – depends on the
level or discrepancy between the
message and our initial anchor point.
• The greater the discrepancy, the more
people adjust their attitudes.
• According to Sherif, volition (will) is not a
factor for the hearers.
Boomerang Effect
• Attitude change in the opposite direction of
what the message advocated; listeners driven
away from rather than drawn to an idea.
Sherif’s Advice for Persuaders
• For maximum influence, select a message
right on the edge of the audience's latitude of
acceptance.
• Persuasion is a gradual process consisting of
small movements.
• The most dramatic, widespread, and enduring
attitude changes involve changes in reference
groups with differing values.
Evidence supporting this theory
• Evidence that argues for acceptance.
– Research on the predictions of social judgment
theory requires highly ego-involved issues.
– Studies have demonstrated three significant
findings.
• Messages from highly credible speakers will stretch the
latitude of acceptance.
• Ambiguity effectively places statements within the
latitude of acceptance.
• Dogmatic people have chronically wide latitudes of
rejection.
Critique
• How wide is your theoretical latitude of acceptance?
– Application of the theory raises ethical problems.
– The theory has practical utility for persuaders.
– Like all cognitive explanations, social judgment theory
assumes a mental structure and process that are beyond
sensory observation.
– While it has not been widely tested empirically, research
does support it, validating its claims while proving the
theory falsifiable.
– Despite these reservations, social judgment theory is an
elegant, intuitively appealing approach to persuasion.
Social Neurologist
John Cacioppo
Ch. 15
Richard Petty & John Cacioppo
Central Route
Peripheral Route
Mental Effort:
High
Mental Effort:
Low
High message
elaboration
No message
elaboration
Message Elaboration
• The extent to which a person carefully thinks
about issue-relevant arguments contained in a
persuasive communication.
• ELM has been a leading communication theory,
perhaps the leading theory, for the past 20 years
Central Route
• The path of cognitive processing that involves
scrutiny of message content
– Mental work, thinking about the message
• Petty and Cacioppo assume that people are motivated
to hold ‘correct’ attitudes but are not always logical in
their approaches to meeting this goal.
• There is only so much time and energy, and there are
many, many messages – a large-mesh mental ‘spam
filter’ (heuristic processing) is necessary.
– Message elaboration
Peripheral Route
• A mental shortcut process that accepts or rejects
a message based on irrelevant cues as opposed
to actively thinking about the issue.
– Robert Cialdini’s six cues that trigger a programmed
response:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reciprocation – “You owe me”
Consistency – “We’ve always done it that way”
Social Proof – “Everybody’s doing it”
Liking – “Love me, love my ideas”
Authority – “Just because I say so”
Scarcity – “Quick, before they’re all gone”
Motivation for Elaboration
• Motivation plays a role in cognition and
message elaboration
• Some individuals have a high need for
cognition, will ‘think about it’ even if ‘it’ is not
personally relevant
• 4 Question Need-for-Cognition Scale
– I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to
problems. (Yes = high need)
– I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. (Yes)
– I like tasks that require little thought once I have learned them. (No)
– Thinking is not my idea of fun. (No)
Ability to Elaborate
• Issue-relevant thinking (elaboration) requires more
than intelligence; it requires concentration.
• Distraction disrupts elaboration.
• Repetition may increase the possibility of
elaboration.
Biased v. Objective Elaborations
• ‘Thinking about it’ does not guarantee objectivity.
• Biased elaboration: Top-down thinking in which
predetermined conclusions color the supporting
data.
• Objective elaboration: Bottom-up thinking in which
facts are scrutinized without bias; seeking truth
wherever it might lead.
Strong, Weak, and Neutral
• Arguments may be strong, weak, or neutral – influencing
the way they are processed via the central route.
• ELM presumes argument strength is an important
variable.
• Strong arguments generate favorable thoughts when
examined, and may increase the message’s likelihood to
persist over time, resist counterpersuasion, and predict
future behavior
• Weak arguments look even worse on closer examination,
offend sensibilities.
Peripheral Cues
• Petty and Cacioppo include the kinds of social
transactions based on the influence of the speaker or
source, likability, credibility, as when an idolized,
attractive, or famous person speaks a message
• These, however, can fail to achieve the desired
persistence over time, resistance to
counterpersuasion, and to predict future behavior –
the audience pays more attention to the speaker or
source than to the message
Nilsen’s Significant Choice
• ELM describes effective persuasion
techniques, can, in theory, be used to design
messages that bypass rational faculties
• Thomas Nilsen is concerned with what is
ethical communication and persuasion
• Advocates message design that fosters free,
informed, rational, and critical choice –
significant choice
Leon Festinger
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
1919-1989
Aesop’s fable of the Fox and the Grapes
Unable to leap high enough to reach
the grapes, the fox concludes that they
are sour and best left uneaten.
“Graveyard smoker” by Florida artist Chris Boone
Smokers experience cognitive
dissonance, particularly when they
know a lot about the consequences
Cognitive Dissonance
• The distressing mental state caused by
inconsistencies between a person’s two beliefs
or a belief and an action
• What are some other examples?
Reducing Dissonance
• Festinger hypothesized that there are three
mental mechanisms people use to reduce
dissonance:
– selective exposure
– postdecision dissonance
– minimal justification
Selective Exposure
• The tendency people have to avoid
information that would create cognitive
dissonance because it’s incompatible with
their current beliefs
Postdecision Dissonance
• Strong doubts experienced after making an
important, close-call decision that is difficult
to reverse
Minimal Justification
• A claim that the best way to stimulate an
attitude change in others is to offer just
enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal
behavior
• Counterattitudinal advocacy: publicly urging
others to believe or do something that is
opposed to what the advocate actually
believes
Compliance
• In this case, “compliance” is ‘public conformity
to another’s expectation without necessarily
having a private conviction that matches the
behavior’
A Classic Experiment
• “Would I lie for a dollar?” The $1/$20 study
• Festinger and James Carlsmith recruited Stanford
University men in a study allegedly investigating
industrial relations, a series of menial tasks
designed to be boring and repetitive
• At the end of the hour, the experimenter
approached the subject claiming an assistant had
failed to arrive and offering him a sum to
convince a young woman in a waiting room to
participate in the same study
• Some were offered $20, some $1
A Classic Experiment
• Some refused, but most students tried to
recruit the young woman
• Those who accepted $20 later confessed that
they believed the task was dull
• Those who accepted $1 maintained it was
much more enjoyable
– I’m a Stanford man. Am I the kind of guy who
would lie for a dollar? No way. Actually, what I told
the girl was true. The experiment was a lot of fun.
The Cause and Effect of Dissonance
THREE STATE-OF-THE-ART
REVISIONS
The Rationalizing Animal
• Elliot Aronsen proposes revising the Cognitive
Dissonance to eliminate “conceptual fuzziness” by
more specifically stating the conditions under which
a person would experience dissonance
A
B
C
D
Attitude/Behavior
Inconsistency
Dissonance
Created
Attitude
Change
Dissonance
Reduced
In Festinger’s Process Model of Cognitive Dissonance, the A->B link is unclear
The Rationalizing Animal
• Aronsen traces the problem not to logical
inconsistency, as Festinger theorized, but to our
psychological inconsistency
• We need to maintain self-esteem
• “If dissonance exists, it is because the individual’s
behavior is inconsistent with his self-concept”
• According to Aronsen, the amount of dissonance a
person can experience is directly proportional to the
effort he or she has invested in the behavior
Personal Responsibility for Bad Outcomes
• AKA “the New Look”
• Joel Cooper argues that it’s the knowledge
that one’s actions have unnecessarily hurt
another person that generates dissonance.
• Cooper concludes that dissonance is a state of
arousal caused by behaving in such a way as
to feel personally responsible for bringing
about an aversive event.
Self-Affirmation to Dissipate Dissonance
• Claude Steele focuses on dissonance
reduction.
• He believes that high self-esteem is a resource
for dissonance reduction.
• Steele asserts that most people are motivated
to maintain a self-image of moral and
adaptive adequacy.
Persuasion through Dissonance
Theory into practice
• Don’t promise lavish benefits
• Work to develop a friendly relationship with the subject – to avoid
triggering selective exposure screening, and to be there after
compliance when postdecision dissonance arises
• Offer just enough encouragement (minimal justification)
• Avoid making an offer the subject cannot refuse – as long as
counterattitudinal actions are freely chosen and publicly taken,
people adopt beliefs to support what they’ve done
• Induce compliance by getting the subject to grasp the potential
downside of that behavior for others (personal responsibility for
negative outcomes)
Critique
• Cognitive dissonance may not be falsifiable.
– Festinger never specified a reliable way to detect the degree of
dissonance a person experiences (a dissonance thermometer).
• Patricia Devine applauds researchers who have attempted to
gauge the arousal component of dissonance.
– Daryl Bem believes that self-perception is a much simpler
explanation of attitude change than cognitive dissonance is.
• His version of the $1/$20 experiment supports his
contention.
• Bem suggests that cognitive dissonance does not follow the
rule of parsimony.
– Despite detractors, cognitive dissonance theory has energized
objective scholars of communication for 50 years.
Cialdini
Milgram, 1963
•
The experimenter (E) orders the
teacher (T), the subject of the
experiment, to give what the latter
believes are painful electric shocks
to a learner (L), who is actually an
actor and confederate. The subject
believes that for each wrong
answer, the learner was receiving
actual electric shocks, though in
reality there were no such
punishments. Being separated from
the subject, the confederate set up
a tape recorder integrated with the
electro-shock generator, which
played pre-recorded sounds for
each shock level
Milgram
• Most of the participants (teacher) gave the full
shocks to the subjects – shocks that would
have been lethal if real
• Deep-seated sense of authority extorts
compliance
Authority
•
• Height: We overestimate height based on
authority
• Suit: Uniform- the bum vs. the suit
• Titles: lawyer, professor, doctor
• Prestige autos: Who do we honk at most?
Bandura