COMM 300 Persuasion in 12 Angry Men Analytical Review

COMM 300 – Review of Film:Focus on Persuasion
There are multiple ways that Persuasion is
exemplified in the film 12 Angry Men. This paper is
a review of the film that asks you to do more than
summarize the film. Please use your three pages to
discuss Persuasion and our Theories of Persuasion that you noticed while viewing the film.
Since the next section will look at Group Theories, you can also discuss areas of Team dynamics
that you noticed in the film.
The following are only suggestions. Please do not attempt to write about all of these areas,
instead select one or two for your discussion of what spoke to you most during your viewing of
the film. Similarly, please feel free to write about areas not covered in these suggestions. Since
these suggestions only cover persuasion, feel free to think outside the box in terms of group
dynamics you noticed as you watched 12 Angry Men.
In your review, please be sure to provide specific examples and define the terms or concepts
you are using. Here are a few ideas that you might want to write about:
1. Our text defines persuasion using 3 parts. Did you see examples of the 3-part definition
in the film?
2. Similarly, our text defines “attitude” as an important part of persuasion. Did you notice
instances where “attitude” made a difference in terms of persuasive application?
3. Our first Persuasion Theory is Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). There are 2 methods
or “routes” to persuasion discussed in the text. Did you notice examples of either of
these methods in 12 Angry Men?? How “effective” was the persuasive approach? What
was the “route?” The outcome? Was knowledge of the audience important? Were
rational and logical approaches more persuasive or emotional appeal?
4. Our second Persuasion Theory is the Theory of Planned Behavior. Did you see evidence
of this theory in 12 Angry Men? The theory includes 2 “predictors” of Behavioral
Intention. Did you notice examples of either or both “predictors?” Were any
“incentives” evident in the film? How “effective” was use of this theoretical approach to
persuasion? Outcomes?
5. Our text discusses Inoculation Theory also. Was this theoretical approach used to
persuade in 12 Angry Men? Any use of “inoculation” to help resist a persuasive
influence? Our text discusses 2 components of the Inoculation Message: “threat” and
“refutational preemption.” Did you notice examples of either or both components? How
effective was this theoretical approach? What were outcomes?
6. The last persuasive theory discussed in our text is Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm. Did you
notice use of narrative in 12 Angry Men? What were the “good reasons” used to
persuade others? How “effective” was use of narrative? Were “cooperative” and
“competing” narratives used to connect the persuasive appeal to a “social world?” Any
examples of “organizational narrative?” What about the contrast between narrative and
“rational-logic?” Any of these contrasts evident in the film?
7. More?? Please remember 12 Angry Men was released in 1957. What are some contrasts
you noticed between then and now? Would those persuasive approaches work now?
Chances are good you were offended by some parts of the film. How did that influence
the persuasive elements for you? Did you change your opinions during the film?
Although this should NOT be the focus of your paper, you can certainly discuss the
contrast between time periods. Did the fact that the film was in Black and White change
anything for you? Did you need to read the subtitles? What else seemed “dated?”
Remember 1957. �
Due October 24 by 10:00 am ~ 3 pages ~ (25 points)
Points:
15 – 3 concepts and associated terms that highlight dynamics of persuasion and/or group
dynamics as found in our text, including definitions, explanations, and examples. Show
me that you understand the concepts and terms and how they were exemplified in the
film!
6 – Please be sure to put the concepts and terms in bold letters, underline the terms, or
highlight the terms, and include at least 3 sentences about the influence of
persuasion/group dynamics as demonstrated in the film. If you use APA, please use it
correctly.
4 – On time. In the correct location. Correct spelling, grammar, etc. PLEASE read for errors
before you submit your paper.
Please double space your paper, use 1 inch margins, Times New Roman 12 point font. There is
no need for a cover page, but please include References if you cite outside material. Keep in
mind that a couple of sentences do not equal a page, and that more is not better.
As usual, please submit your paper on Canvas (double-check that your paper is completely
submitted).
**Please avoid broad generalizations and summaries of the film. Instead focus your paper on
how you noticed Persuasion and/or Teamwork within the film.
Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life
Fourth Edition
2
3
Applying Communication Theory for
Professional Life
A Practical Introduction
Fourth Edition
Marianne Dainton
La Salle University, USA
Elaine D. Zelley
La Salle University, USA
4
FOR INFORMATION:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Copyright © 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dainton, Marianne author. | Zelley, Elaine D. author.
Title: Applying communication theory for professional life : a practical introduction / Marianne Dainton, La Salle
University ; Elaine D. Zelley, La Salle University.
Description: Fourth edition. | Los Angeles : SAGE, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017039906 | ISBN 9781506315478 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication—Philosophy.
5
Classification: LCC P90 .D245 2018 | DDC 302.2/01—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017039906
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Acquisitions Editor: Terri Accomazzo
Editorial Assistant: Erik Helton
Production Editor: Myleen Medina
Copy Editor: Michelle Ponce
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Rae-Ann Goodwin
Cover Designer: Anupama Krishnan
Marketing Manager: Allison Henry
6
Brief Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 Introduction to Communication Theory
Chapter 2 Theory Development
Chapter 3 Cognition and Intrapersonal Communication
Chapter 4 Individual and Social Approaches to Communication
Chapter 5 Interpersonal Communication
Chapter 6 Culture
Chapter 7 Persuasion
Chapter 8 Group Communication
Chapter 9 Organizational Communication
Chapter 10 Mediated Communication
Chapter 11 Mass Communication
Chapter 12 What Should a Communicator Do?
Glossary
References
About the Authors
Index
7
Detailed Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1 Introduction to Communication Theory
Learning Objectives
What Is Communication?
Dance’s Definitions of Communication
Contexts of Communication
Communication Competence
Concepts, Models, and Theories
Three Types of Theory
Evaluating Theory
Summary
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 1: Education as Entertainment
• Chapter 2 Theory Development
Learning Objectives
Theory–Research Link
What Is Research?
Research Methods in Communication
Experiments
Surveys
Textual Analysis
Ethnography
Social Science and the Humanities
How Theories Change and Grow
Summary
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 2: Education as Entertainment Reconsidered
• Chapter 3 Cognition and Intrapersonal Communication
Learning Objectives
Cognitive Process
Attribution Theory
Attributions as Naïve Psychology
Correspondent Inference Theory
Kelley’s Covariation Model
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Reducing Uncertainty
Types of Uncertainty
Axioms Explaining the Uncertainty Reduction Process
8
Uncertainty Reduction Strategies
Beyond Initial Interactions
Expectancy Violations Theory
Assumptions
Core Concepts of Expectancy Violations Theory
Predicting Reactions When Expectations Are Violated
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Schemata: Creating Familiarity or Discomfort
Relationship Between Beliefs and Behaviors
Persuasion Through Dissonance
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 3: You’re Fired!
• Chapter 4 Individual and Social Approaches to Communication
Learning Objectives
Nature Versus Nurture
Social Role Theory of Gender
Sex and Gender: What’s the Difference?
Role Congruity Theory and Leadership
What About Actual Differences in Communication?
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Message Design Logics
Three Message Design Logics
Message Design Logics Preferences
Interactional Perspective on Workplace Generations
What Are the Generations?
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 4: Caught in Between
• Chapter 5 Interpersonal Communication
Learning Objectives
Interpersonal Communication Defined
Politeness Theory
Assumptions of Politeness Theory
Preserving Face
Social Exchange Theory
Assumptions of SET
Core Components of SET
Dialectical Perspective
Assumptions of the Dialectical Perspective
Communication Privacy Management Theory
Principles of CPM
9
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 5: Bad Move
• Chapter 6 Culture
Learning Objectives
Culture Defined
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Individualism–Collectivism
Uncertainty Avoidance
Power Distance
Masculinity–Femininity
Long-Term and Short-Term Orientation
Dimensions Combined
Communication Accommodation Theory
Communicating Social Identity Through In-Groups and Out-Groups
Accommodation Through Convergence or Divergence
Extending the Theory: Maintenance and Nonaccommodation
Who Accommodates to Whom?
Pitfalls of Accommodation
Accommodation and Leader-Member Exchange
Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory
Conflict Face Negotiation Theory
Combining Face With Cultural Orientation
Toward a Global Understanding of Conflict Management
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 6: The Trouble With Tourists
• Chapter 7 Persuasion
Learning Objectives
Persuasion Defined
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Slow and Steady: The Central Route to Persuasion
Types of Elaborated Arguments
Taking a Shortcut: The Peripheral Route to Persuasion
Types of Peripheral Cues
Types of Peripheral Messages
Theory of Planned Behavior
Theory of Reasoned Action
Adding to the Theory
Inoculation Theory
Developing the Concept
Narrative Paradigm
10
Fisher’s Narrative Assumptions
Study in Contrasts: Comparing Narrative and Rational Paradigms
Organizational Storytelling
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 7: Million-Dollar Manipulation
• Chapter 8 Group Communication
Learning Objectives
Group Communication Defined
Functional Group Decision Making
Groupthink
Antecedent Conditions
Symptoms of Groupthink
Adaptive Structuration Theory
Assumptions of Structuration Theory
Adaptive Structuration Theory
Adaptive Structuration and Group Decision Making
Adaptive Structuration and Virtual Teams
Symbolic Convergence Theory
Central Concepts of SCT
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 8: The Gifted Group
• Chapter 9 Organizational Communication
Learning Objectives
Organizational Communication Defined
Systems Metaphor
Organizational Culture
Level 1: Artifacts
Level 2: Values
Level 3: Assumptions
Organizational Assimilation
Vocational Anticipatory Socialization
Anticipatory Socialization
Encounter
Metamorphosis
Organizational Identification and Control
Identification
Control
Discipline
Organizing Theory
Summary and Research Applications
11
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 9: Losing Hope
• Chapter 10 Mediated Communication
Learning Objectives
What Is Social Media?
Diffusion of Innovations
Innovation Decision Process
Why Some Innovations and Not Others?
Time and Diffusion
Social Network Analysis
Network Properties
Properties of Network Links
Network Roles
Implications for Understanding Social Media
Media Richness Theory
What Is a Rich Medium?
How Ambiguous Is the Message?
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Why Do We Watch What We Watch?
Summary and Research Applications
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 10: Casino Controversy
• Chapter 11 Mass Communication
Learning Objectives
Characteristics of Mass Media
Agenda-Setting Theory
“Framing” the News and Second Level Agenda Setting
Cultivation Theory
Starting With Violence
What Effects? For Whom?
How Else Is Reality Distorted?
How Does Cultivation Take Place and With What Effect?
Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication
Four Processes of Observational Learning
Dual Paths of Influence
Modeling and Media Violence
Encoding/Decoding Theory
Assumptions of Encoding/Decoding Theory
“Reading” a Message
Decoding Is the Central Process
Oppositional Does Not Mean Against
Summary and Research Applications
12
Key Terms
➜ Case Study 11: The New (Media) Culture Wars
• Chapter 12 What Should a Communicator Do?
Learning Objectives
Conclusions About Communication
Direct or Indirect
Reciprocate or Compensate
Conclusions About Influences and Effects
Cohesion, Connection, and In-Groups
Context
Expectations
Face and Self Versus Other Orientation
Individual Qualities
Interest and Involvement
Needs
Power and Control
Relationships
Rewards
Rules
Social Networks
Uncertainty and Ambiguity
Values and Beliefs
Returning to Communication Competence
Summary
➜ Case Study 12: Arguments at Amazing Adventures
Glossary
References
About the Authors
Index
13
Preface
This book is designed to serve as a communication theory textbook for upper-level
undergraduate and master’s degree students. Although it is intended for upper-level
students, we make no presumption that the students have previous knowledge or
background in communication or communication theory. Rather, the text is meant to serve
as a practical introduction to the topic for students pursuing (or currently working in)
careers in communication-related industries.
We have found that the primary challenge of instructors teaching communication theory to
career-oriented students is the abstract nature of the topic; many students have difficulty
seeing the relevance of communication theory in their professional lives. Our goal for
writing this book is to make communication theory tangible to students by explaining the
theories in practical ways and by assisting students in seeing how theory can be used in
professional life. The response to previous editions of this book has been overwhelmingly
favorable, and we are grateful to have achieved our goal.
In this fourth edition, the major changes have been with the case studies. All of the case
studies now include specific questions about ethical issues associated with the narrative of
the case. In Chapters 1 and 2 we have revised the simulated “Education as Entertainment
Theory” to include apps and other new media forms of educational content. The case study
for Chapter 4, which focuses on individual differences and social approaches to
communication, is a modification of a case study that had previously been used for
interpersonal communication. In addition, four brand new case studies have been included:
Chapter 3 contains a case called “You’re Fired,” Chapter 5 incorporates a case called “Bad
Move,” Chapter 7 includes a case called “Million-Dollar Manipulation,” and Chapter 11
adds a case called “The (New) Media Culture Wars.”
As relevant, modifications to theories have been incorporated, and new research that uses
those theories has been included in the Summaries and Research Applications section in
each chapter. Popular culture references have been updated as well, and we have used a
number of political examples to reflect the increasingly divergent political rhetoric in the
United States. Finally, thanks to feedback from the faculty who have adopted this text, we
have streamlined the learning objectives for each chapter.
As a reminder to instructors and students, this textbook is not meant to provide a
comprehensive survey of all communication theory, nor is it meant to focus only on
particular contexts of communication. Instead, we have selected representative theories that
have clear applicability to communication practitioners. Finally, we have not limited
ourselves only to theories developed in the communication discipline because we believe all
theories that address communication—whether developed within the field or not—are
14
important tools for communication professionals.
15
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the reviewers for this edition, as well as the faculty members who
have e-mailed us with their compliments and recommendations. We are very appreciative
of their support and feedback, and we hope we have done justice to your recommendations.
We also would like to thank several of our graduate students, whose workplace stories serve
as the foundation for some of our cases in this and previous cases. Specifically, we thank
Tiffany Mercer-Robbins, Michele Langley, Vincent Haas, Maryam Ashfar, Janet Donovan,
Lauren Zane-Virostek, Cristina Tosti, and Julie Pompizzi (all names and organizations
listed in the case studies are pseudonyms).
We also would like to thank our students and colleagues at La Salle University. Our
students continue to challenge us with the “so what” question, and we are pleased most of
them are persuaded by our answers. Our colleagues in the communication department also
deserve acknowledgment; they not only serve as outstanding instructor role models but also
continue to greet our work with enthusiasm and provide us with much-needed social
support. We particularly thank Katie Neary Dunleavy for her advice and support.
It often goes without saying (but shouldn’t!) that we thank our family members and friends
for their ongoing support. Both Marianne and Elaine are especially grateful to their
husbands, Scott and Bryan, for serving as sounding boards and providing insight from the
corporate world. More than a few of their experiences have made it into this text.
16
Chapter One Introduction to Communication
Theory
pixabay.com
17
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to do the following:
1. Analyze a definition of communication, articulating the definition’s level of
observation, intentionality, and normative judgment
2. Recognize the various contexts in which communication takes place
3. Differentiate a communication theory from a concept and a model
4. Discriminate between commonsense, working, and scholarly theories
5. Use criteria for evaluating theory to determine the relative usefulness of a
communication theory
There are almost 600,000 web pages devoted to explaining that “communication is easy”
(go ahead and search it!) and over 7 million YouTube hits for the same phrase. Of course, if
mastering the communication process really only required viewing a 4-minute video, we
would all be maestros of getting our messages understood. Unfortunately, much of popular
culture tends to minimize the challenges associated with the communication process. Yes,
in the 21st century, we believe communication skill is important—you need only to peruse
the content of talk shows, dating apps, advice columns, and organizational performance
reviews to recognize that communication skills can make or break an individual’s personal
and professional life. Companies want to hire and promote people with excellent
communication skills (Beaton, 2017). Divorces occur because spouses believe they “no
longer communicate” (Dutihl, 2012). Communication is perceived as a magical elixir, one
that can ensure a happy long-term relationship and guarantee organizational success. Yet,
despite lauding communication as the sine qua non of contemporary success, the secret to
that success is treated superficially at best in our modern information environment. Clearly,
popular culture holds paradoxical views about communication: It is easy to do yet powerful
in its effects, simultaneously simple and magical.
We believe the communication process is complex. “Good” communication means
different things to different people in different situations. Accordingly, simply adopting a
set of particular skills is not going to guarantee success. Genuinely good communicators are
those who understand the underlying principles behind communication and are able to
enact, appropriately and effectively, particular communication skills as the situation
warrants. This book seeks to provide the foundation for those sorts of decisions. We focus
on communication theories that can be applied in your personal and professional lives.
Understanding these theories—including their underlying assumptions and the predictions
they make—can make you a more competent communicator.
18
What Is Communication?
This text is concerned with communication theory, so it is important to be clear about the
term communication. The everyday view of communication is quite different from the view
of communication taken by communication scholars. In the business world, for example, a
popular view is that communication is synonymous with information. Thus, the
communication process is the flow of information from one person to another (Axley,
1984). Communication is viewed as simply one activity among many others, such as
planning, controlling, and managing (Deetz, 1994). It is what we do in organizations.
Communication scholars, on the other hand, recognize communication as more than just
the flow of information. In a simplified world in which a short YouTube clip could explain
to viewers why communication is “easy,” we could handily provide you with a one-sentence
definition of the term communication. Based on that simple definition, we would all
understand the meaning of the term, and we would all use the term in exactly the same
way. However, scholars disagree as to the scope of the process, whether a source or receiver
orientation should be taken, and whether message exchange need be successful to count as
communication.
19
Dance’s Definitions of Communication
Fundamentally, communication is a complex process associated with sending, receiving,
and interpreting messages. Beyond that, however, the concept of communication is just
not that easy to delineate. Back in 1976, Dance and Larson reported 126 published
definitions of the term communication. The variations in the definitions were profound.
Table 1.1 highlights the ways the definitions varied.
In looking at the multitude of definitions of communication, Dance (1970) identified three
variations. First, Dance argued that definitions varied based on the level of observation,
which he described as the scope of what is included in the definition. For example, Dance
(1967, as reported in Dance & Larson, 1976, Appendix A) defined communication as
“eliciting a response through verbal symbols.” This definition limits what is considered
communication in two ways. First, it limits communication to only that which elicits a
response. Consider an example where you instruct a coworker to fill out a particular form.
If that coworker doesn’t respond in any way, by this definition, communication hasn’t
occurred. The second way this definition limits communication is in saying
communication is only verbal. So, if your coworker gives you the “okay” gesture when
you’ve asked her to fill out the report, her response to your request would not be considered
communication, as it was purely nonverbal. Definitions that make such limitations are said
to have a relatively narrow level of observation; only specific types of message exchanges
“count” as communication. These types of definitions might suggest messages that don’t
meet the requirements to be considered communication are informative rather than
communicative.
Other definitions, however, try to be very inclusive about behaviors that might be
considered communication. To illustrate, another definition identified by Dance and
Larson (1976) says communication is “all of the procedures by which one mind can affect
another” (Weaver, 1949, as cited in Dance & Larson, Appendix A). Notice that this
definition does not give any indication of whether the mind is of a human, an animal, or
even an alien (if there are such things). More importantly, it suggests all behavior can count
as communication. Such definitions are considered to have a broad level of observation. As
such, the first way to differentiate between theories is to consider what “counts” as
communication.
A second distinction made by Dance (1970) is the stance the definition takes on
intentionality. Some definitions explicitly indicate that for communication to occur, the
exchange of messages has to be on purpose. For example, Miller (1966) defined
communication as “those situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver with
conscious intent to affect the latter’s behaviors” (as cited in Dance & Larson, 1976,
Appendix A). Definitions such as this one are said to take a source orientation. So, for
20
example, if your boss were to yawn while you gave a presentation, this definition would not
consider the yawn as communication if your boss did not yawn on purpose (i.e., if she
yawned as a physiological response to tiredness rather than to suggest you were boring her).
However, other definitions take a receiver orientation to communication. Such definitions
buy into the notion that “you cannot not communicate”; anything you say or do is
potentially communicative, regardless of whether you intended to send a message or not
(see Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). For example, Ruesch and Bateson (1961, as
cited in Dance & Larson, 1976, Appendix A) say that “communication does not refer to
verbal, explicit, and intentional transmission of messages alone. . . . The concept of
communication would include all those processes by which people influence one another.”
In this case, if you (as the receiver) were to interpret your boss’s yawn as a message of
boredom, it should be considered communication, regardless of whether the boss intended
to send that message or not.
The final way Dance (1970) argues that definitions of communication vary is normative
judgment, which is a focus on whether the definition requires an indication of success or
accuracy. Some definitions would suggest that even if people misunderstand each other,
communication has still occurred. Berelson and Steiner (1964), for example, say
communication is “the transmission of information, ideas, emotions, skills, etc., by the use
of—symbols—words, pictures, figures, graphs, etc. It is the act or process of transmission
that is called communication” (as cited in Dance & Larson, 1976, Appendix A). In this
case, it is the transmission that is important, not the understanding. So, if a student has no
idea what a teacher is talking about, by this definition, communication has still occurred, it
just may not have been very effective communication. Definitions like this are said to be
nonevaluative.
Other definitions limit communication to only those situations where the receiver and the
source share the same understanding after the communicative effort. These definitions,
identified as being evaluative, require shared meaning in order to be considered
communication; unsuccessful messages are not considered to be communication. To
illustrate, Gode (1959, as cited in Dance & Larson, 1976, Appendix A) defines
communication as “a process that makes common to two or several what was the monopoly
of one or some.” This definition suggests that if the message has not resulted in a common
understanding, communication has not occurred. In the example of student-teacher
interaction described earlier, if the student doesn’t understand the teacher, then by this
definition the teacher has not communicated. She or he may have lectured, cajoled, or
presented, but she or he has not communicated.
21
By now you understand some of the complexities of the nature of communication.
Throughout the book, different theorists likely use different definitions of communication.
Sometimes these variations in definition will be obvious, sometimes they will be less so. For
example, systems theory (see Chapter 9) spends a great deal of time articulating the nature
of communication. In so doing, it becomes clear that this theory takes a broad level of
observation, a receiver orientation, and is nonevaluative. However, other theories only
imply what they mean by communication. Poole and colleagues, in their adaptive
structuration approach (see Chapter 8), never articulate their definition of communication.
Because the theory is grounded in Giddens’s sociological approach, however, we can
assume they define communication in a similar fashion to Giddens, who defines
communication as “a basis for understanding and bridging experiences, a way of creating
social reality” (Giddens, 1976, as cited in Putnam, 1983, p. 51). As such, this theory also
takes a broad level of observation, but the focus is more on intentional acts (source
orientation), and by stressing the notion of understanding, it is more evaluative in nature.
22
Contexts of Communication
Although we hesitate to provide a single definition of communication, we can identify
some specific contexts of communication. In fact, we have organized this book around
these specific contexts. The first context that requires consideration is the cognitive context,
by which we mean the influence our thoughts have on the way we communicate. Relatedly,
the second context is the individual differences context. Here we consider the naturenurture debate. In so doing, we continue to consider how individual differences and social
roles play a role in the communication process. Third is the interpersonal context, which
refers to the interactions between two individuals, who most often have a relationship with
each other. Fourth is the intercultural context, which focuses on interpersonal
communication when two people are from different cultures. The fifth context is not
specifically focused on a setting for communication but on a particular type of
communication: the persuasive context. Readers should know that persuasion actually takes
place in a variety of settings, ranging from inside one person’s mind to the mass media. The
sixth and seventh contexts are closely aligned with the world of work: the group context
and the organizational context. Finally, the eighth context is the mediated context, which is
concerned with how technology influences our interpersonal, group, and organizational
communication. The ninth and final context is the mass communication context, which
focuses on the influence of mass-mediated messages. Table 1.2 provides an overview of
these contexts and the theories covered in this text that are associated with each context.
23
24
Communication Competence
Because we believe one of the goals of studying communication theory is to make you a
better communicator, we should articulate more clearly the nature of communication
competence. Research indicates that communication competence is most often understood
as achieving a successful balance between effectiveness and appropriateness (Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1989). Effectiveness is the extent to which you achieve your goals in an interaction.
Did you get the raise? Were you able to convince a subordinate that timeliness is
important? Did you persuade your spouse to clean the bathroom? Appropriateness refers to
fulfilling social expectations for a particular situation. Did you assertively ask for the raise,
or was it a meek inquiry? Were you insistent or wishy-washy when discussing your
employee’s tardiness? Was your interaction with your spouse demonstrative, or did you
passive-aggressively pile dirty towels on the floor? Many times, a person is effective without
being appropriate; consider a job applicant who lies on a resume to get a job for which he
or she is unqualified. That person might be very effective in getting the job, but is such
deceit appropriate? On the other hand, many times people are appropriate to the point of
failing to achieve their goals. For example, a person who doesn’t wish to take on an
additional task at work, but says nothing because he or she fears causing conflict, might be
sacrificing effectiveness for appropriateness. The key is that when faced with
communicative decisions, the competent communicator considers how to be both effective
and appropriate. We believe the theories described in this book will help you achieve your
communication goals by providing an indication of both what should be done as well as
how you should do it.
25
Concepts, Models, and Theories
The term theory is often intimidating to students. We hope by the time you finish reading
this book you will find working with theory to be less daunting than you might have
expected. The reality is that you have been working with theories of communication all of
your life, even if they haven’t been labelled as such. Theories simply provide an abstract
understanding of the communication process (Miller, 2002). As an abstract understanding,
they move beyond describing a single event by providing a means by which all such events
can be understood. To illustrate, a theory of customer service can help you understand the
poor customer service you received from your cable company this morning. Likewise, the
same theory can also help you understand a good customer service encounter you had last
week at a favorite restaurant. In a professional context, the theory can assist your
organization in training and developing customer service personnel.
At their most basic level, theories provide us with a lens by which to view the world. Think
of theories as a pair of glasses. Corrective lenses allow wearers to observe more clearly, but
they also affect vision in unforeseen ways. For example, they can limit the span of what you
see, especially when you try to look peripherally outside the range of the frames. Similarly,
lenses can also distort the things you see, making objects appear larger or smaller than they
really are. You can also try on lots of pairs of glasses until you finally pick a pair that works
best for your lifestyle. Theories operate in a similar fashion. A theory can illuminate an
aspect of your communication so you understand the process much more clearly; theory
also can hide things from your understanding or distort the relative importance of things.
We consider a communication theory to be any systematic summary about the nature of
the communication process. Certainly, theories can do more than summarize. Other
functions of theories are to focus attention on particular concepts, clarify observations,
predict communication behavior, and generate personal and social change (Littlejohn,
1989). We do not believe, however, that all of these functions are necessary for a systematic
summary of communication processes to be considered a theory.
Although similar to at least two other terms, we want to be careful to differentiate theories
from other abstract notions. First, a concept refers to an agreed-upon aspect of reality. For
example, time is a concept, as is love, the color orange, and a bitter taste. All of these notions
are abstract, meaning they can be applied to a variety of individual experiences or objects
and can be understood in different ways. That is, you might love your cat in a different way
than you love your mother; you might think time drags when in a class you don’t much
like but that it speeds up over the weekend; and you might hate the color orange and love
the bitterness of certain foods. However, in and of themselves these concepts are not
theories; they represent an effort to define or classify something, but they do not provide
insights into how or why we experience them in a particular way. Typically, theories
26
provide a way to predict or understand one or more concepts. So, a definition of
communication described earlier is a concept, but how that definition is used to explain the
communication process is a theory.
A second term you might confuse with theory is a model. Part of the confusion you might
experience is because the term model is used in at least four ways (Gabrenya, 2003;
Goldfarb & Ratner, 2008): as a synonym to the term theory, as a precursor to a theory (a
model is developed and eventually becomes a theory), as a physical representation of a
theory (i.e., a diagram such as the one that appears for expectancy violations theory in
Chapter 3), or as a specific—often mathematical—application of predication (e.g., a
researcher might develop a mathematical model to predict which job categories are going to
be in high demand in upcoming years). Because of these varying ways of understanding a
model, we believe the term theory is preferable when talking about systematic summaries of
the communication process.
27
Three Types of Theory
Of central interest is the importance of theory for people in communication, business, and
other professions. Our definition of theory suggests that any time you say a communication
strategy usually works this way at your workplace, or that a specific approach is generally
effective with your boss, or that certain types of communication are typical for particular
media organizations, you are in essence providing a theoretical explanation. Most of us
make these types of summary statements on a regular basis. The difference between this
sort of theorizing and the theories provided in this book centers on the term systematic in
the definition. Table 1.3 presents an overview of three types of theory.
The first summary statements in the table describe what is known as commonsense theory,
or theory-in-use. This type of theory is often created by an individual’s own personal
experiences or developed from helpful hints passed on from family members, friends, or
colleagues. Commonsense theories are useful because they are often the basis for our
decisions about how to communicate. Sometimes, however, our commonsense backfires.
For example, think about common knowledge regarding deception. Most people believe
that liars don’t look the person they are deceiving in the eyes, yet research indicates this is
not the case (DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985). Let’s face it: If we engage in deception, we
will work very hard at maintaining eye contact simply because we believe liars don’t make
eye contact! In this case, commonsense theory is not supported by research into the
phenomenon.
A second type of theory is known as working theory. These are generalizations made in
particular professions about the best techniques for doing something. Journalists work
using the “inverted pyramid” of story construction (most important information to least
important information). Filmmakers operate using specific camera shots to evoke particular
emotions in the audience, so close-ups are used when a filmmaker wants the audience to
place particular emphasis on the object in the shot. Giannetti (1982), for example,
describes a scene in Hitchcock’s Notorious in which the heroine realizes she is being
poisoned by her coffee, and the audience “sees” this realization through a close-up of the
coffee cup. Working theories are more systematic than commonsense theories because they
represent agreed-on ways of doing things for a particular profession. In fact, these working
theories may very well be based on scholarly theories. However, working theories more
closely represent guidelines for behavior rather than systematic representations. These types
of theories are typically taught in content-specific courses (such as public relations, media
production, or public speaking).
28
The type of theory we focus on in this book is known as scholarly theory. Students often
assume (incorrectly!) that because a theory is labeled as scholarly it is not useful for people in
business and the professions. Instead, the term scholarly indicates that the theory has
undergone systematic research. Accordingly, scholarly theories provide more thorough,
accurate, and abstract explanations for communication than do commonsense or working
theories. The downside is that scholarly theories are typically more complex and difficult to
understand than commonsense or working theories. If you are genuinely committed to
improving your understanding of the communication process, however, scholarly theory
will provide a strong foundation for doing so.
29
Evaluating Theory
Earlier we suggested that all theories have strengths and weaknesses; they reveal certain
aspects of reality and conceal others. An important task students and scholars face is to
evaluate the theories available to them. We are not talking about evaluation in terms of
“good” versus “bad” but evaluating the usefulness of the theory. Each of you is likely to find
some of the theories presented in this text more useful than others. Such a determination is
likely due at least in part to your own background and experiences, as well as your
profession. We would like to challenge you to broaden your scope and consider not just the
usefulness of each theory to you personally but the usefulness of the theory for people’s
personal and professional lives in general.
A number of published standards can be used to evaluate theories (e.g., Griffin, Ledbetter,
& Sparks, 2015; West & Turner, 2017). All are appropriate and effective tools for
comparing the relative usefulness of a given theory. Because this text is geared toward
working professionals, however (or those who wish to soon be working in the profession of
their choice), we believe the following five criteria outlined in Table 1.4 best capture the
way to assess the relative usefulness of communication theories in the communication,
business, and related professions. Note that we are talking about the relative usefulness of
the theory. We are not talking about either/or, good or bad, weak or strong. Instead, we
hope you look at these distinctions as continua that range from very useful at one end to
not particularly useful at the other end.
The first area of focus is accuracy. Simply put, the best theories correctly summarize the
way communication actually works. Recall, however, that we are referring to scholarly
theories. As such, we do not mean accuracy in terms of whether the theory accurately
reflects your own personal experience (although we would hope that it does!). Instead,
when we use the term accuracy, we are suggesting that systematic research supports the
explanations provided by the theory. Thus, in assessing this quality, you should look at
research studies that have used the theory to see whether the research supports or fails to
support it.
A second way to evaluate theories is practicality. The best theories can be used to address
real-world communication problems; in fact, Lewin (1951) said, “There is nothing so
practical as a good theory” (p. 169). Clearly, some profound theories have changed the way
we understand the world even though they aren’t actually used by most people on a daily
basis (Einstein’s theory of relativity or Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example). In terms
of communication theories, however, theories that are accurate but can’t be used in
everyday life are not as good as theories that have great practical utility. For example, a
theory that can help a person make better communicative decisions in his or her
interactions with coworkers is better than a theory so abstract that it cannot be used by an
30
individual in daily communication. Thus, a theory with more applications is better than a
theory without practical uses. In assessing this criterion, you should look not only for how
the theory has been used in the research literature but also whether the theory has made the
leap to professional practice.
Succinctness is the third way to evaluate a good business or professional communication
theory. Succinctness refers to whether or not a theory’s explanation or description is
sufficiently concise. Importantly, succinctness does not mean the theory is necessarily easy
to understand or has only a few short steps; because the world is complex, theories trying to
explain it are often fairly complex as well. Instead, what we mean by succinctness is whether
the theory is formulated using as few steps as possible. The “three bears” analogy works
here. Theories that have extra steps or include variables that don’t help us understand realworld experiences would be considered overly complex. Theories that do not have enough
steps, that don’t delve beneath the surface, or that don’t have enough variables to
understand real-world problems are too simple. Theories that include no more and no less
than necessary to understand a phenomenon thoroughly are considered just right; they are
appropriately succinct. The best way to think of succinctness is to compare how much of
the communication situation is explained by the theory in proportion to how many
concepts are being used to explain it. The larger the situation and the smaller the number
of necessary steps or concepts, the more succinct the theory.
The fourth way to evaluate a theory is to consider its consistency. The most useful theories
have both internal and external consistency. By internal consistency, we mean the ideas of
the theory are logically built on one another. A theory that proposes at one point that
cooperation among team members guarantees success and at a different point proposes that
competition is more effective than cooperation has a logical flaw. Similarly, theories that
“skip” steps do not have much internal consistency. A theory predicting that age is related
to the experience of jealousy and that one’s expression of jealousy affects the future of the
relationship, but then fails to tell us how the experience of jealousy is related to the
expression of jealousy, has a logical gap. As such, it does not have strong internal
consistency.
External consistency, on the other hand, refers to the theory’s coherence with other widely
held theories. If we presume that widely held theories are true, then the theory under
evaluation that disagrees with those believed supported theories also presents a logical
problem. As such, the notion of consistency, whether internal or external, is concerned with
the logic of the theory. The most useful theories are those that have a strong logical
structure.
The final area for evaluation is acuity. Acuity refers to the ability of a theory to provide
insight into an otherwise intricate issue. Earlier we said theories evaluated as “succinct” are
not necessarily easy to understand because the real world is often complicated. A theory
that explains an intricate problem, however, is of greater value than a theory that explains
31
something less complex. Think of acuity as the “wow” factor. If, after understanding the
theory, you think “wow, I never considered that!” the theory has acuity. If, on the other
hand, you think “no duh,” the theory does not demonstrate acuity. To illustrate, a theory
that explains a complex problem, such as how organizational cultures can influence
employee retention, is a more useful theory than a theory that explains a relatively
straightforward problem, such as how to gain attention in a speech. Those theories that
explain difficult problems show acuity; those that focus on fairly obvious problems
demonstrate superficiality.
Summary
In this chapter, we discussed the popular perception of communication, which suggests that the
communication process is paradoxically simple yet powerful. We identified three ways our understanding of
communication can vary: the level of observation (what is included or not included in the definition), the
role of intentionality (whether speaker intent is required), and normative judgment (whether success is
required in order for an interaction to be considered communication). We then turned our attention to
communication competence, indicating that competent communicators are those who can balance
effectiveness and appropriateness. Next, we discussed the nature of theory. We differentiated between
concepts, models, and theories. We also discussed the distinctions between commonsense theories, working
theories, and scholarly theories. Finally, we provided a means by which scholarly theories of communication
can be evaluated, namely accuracy, practicality, succinctness, consistency, and acuity.
32
Key Terms
Accuracy 10
Acuity 11
Commonsense theory 8
Communication 2
Communication competence 6
Concept 7
Consistency 11
Contexts of communication 4
External consistency 11
Intentionality 3
Internal consistency 11
Level of observation 2
Model 8
Normative judgment 3
Practicality 10
Receiver orientation 3
Scholarly theory 9
Source orientation 3
Succinctness 10
Theory 7
Working theory 8
33
Case Study 1: Education as Entertainment
Imagine a new theory has been proposed, described shortly. This isn’t a “real” theory: it has been created just so that you
can apply the material from this chapter. We challenge you to think critically about the theory using the concepts you
have learned.
In 1969, a radical new children’s program appeared on television, one specifically designed to blend education
with entertainment (characterproducts.com, 2004). Sesame Street, which has been on the air continuously for
almost 50 years, uses puppets, live action, and cartoons in an effort to teach children basic skills such as
identifying colors, the ABCs, and counting. The show itself is grounded in contemporary educational research,
with a child psychologist in charge of evaluation of material that appears on the show (2004; McMullin, 2001).
McMullin (2001) argues that Sesame Street is the “single largest educator of young children in the world” (¶ 2).
More than just a television show, Sesame Street has also branched into other media forms. In addition to their
website, Sesame Street currently produces 10 game apps, 6 story apps, over 75 electronic books, and 5 apps that
are listed as “family tool kits” to assist children in coping with social issues like divorce and incarceration. Further,
there is a subscription Sesame Street channel on YouTube that has more than 2 million subscribers and more than
a billion hits per year (Folkenflik, 2016), as well as six other channels affiliated with Sesame Street, including a
YouTube channel called Sesame Studios that features original digital content distinct from the popular Sesame
Street puppets. “The idea is to create new content swiftly and inexpensively, reaching children where they
consume media, just like adults, on smartphones, tablets and computers,” (Folkneflik, 2016, ¶2).
Despite the popularity and success of the Sesame Street conglomerate, we propose education as entertainment
theory (EET), which suggests there is a dark side to educational media such as Sesame Street. Specifically, the
theory asserts that children exposed to screen media that blend education and entertainment become so
accustomed to the idea that “learning is fun” that they are actually less motivated to learn when alternative
instructional methods are used in a classroom setting. There are five key terms associated with this theory:
entertainment-education media, instructional style, expectations, motivation, and learning.
Entertainment-education media. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2017), children spend an
average of 7 hours per day in front of a screen. About 25% of children under the age of 8 regularly watch
educational television, about 8% play educational games on a computer, and 7% access educational content on
mobile devices (Heintz & Wartella, 2012). The common goal of these educational media forms is to engage
children’s attention so that they might learn. Yet, research has demonstrated a number of negative effects of
screen time on young children, including childhood obesity, irregular sleep patterns, and social and behavioral
issues (Summers, 2014). More importantly, research also indicates that use of digital media is associated with
changes in early learning and development (Kates, 2016). EET argues that heavy consumption of entertainmenteducation content has a negative impact on children’s later school performance because of the expectation that
learning should always be fun. This leads to the second central idea, instructional style.
Instructional style. Instructional style refers to the techniques used in the education process. According to Forrest
(2004), “A review of the research regarding learning processes suggests that instructors use a wide variety of
teaching methods, believing that this affords all students an opportunity to gain the necessary knowledge,
regardless of their learning styles” (p. 74).
The research makes a distinction between instructor-focused and student-focused teaching (Andersen,
Nussbaum, Pecchioni, & Grant, 1999). Instructor-focused teaching is the traditional model, wherein the teacher
is in charge of the pace and content of the class. Student-focused instruction encourages greater student
participation, for example, cooperative learning (where students are put into groups or teams and teach and
motivate each other) and class discussion (Andersen et al., 1999).
EET focuses on entertainment instructional style. This refers to efforts to make learning “fun.” The
entertainment instructional style relies on music, role-playing, games, and visual stimulation, among other things.
34
The goal is to increase interest and reduce boredom. Efforts are made to have students participate in the learning
in an informal style (Handfield-Jones, Nasmith, Steinert, & Lawn, 1993).
Expectations. Expectations are what we anticipate will happen. In the case of EET, we are referring to expectations
based on context, specifically, the learning context. According to Staton (1999), “Both instructors and students
bring with them to the classroom certain expectations for the kind of speech that should and should not occur,
for the kind of behavior that is and is not appropriate, for the roles that the instructor and students should and
should not take, and for the nature of the social atmosphere that should and should not develop” (p. 35). In this
case, we are specifically talking about expectations for entertaining instruction.
Motivation. Motivation refers to a student’s desire for learning (Kerssen-Griep, Hess, & Trees, 2003). It is a drive
for achievement in a particular course or content area. We presume that expectations influence motivation, such
that when expectations are met, a student will be more motivated to learn. This is supported by research, which
has found that instructional methods influence student motivation (Kerssen-Griep et al., 2003).
Learning. Learning is defined as “a process of progressive change from ignorance to knowledge, from inability to
competence, and from indifference to understanding” (Fincher, 1994, as cited in Forrest, 2004, p. 74).
According to Rubin (1999), learning is typically measured through assignments such as skills performance (e.g., a
speech) or written assignments (exams, papers).
In summary, EET proposes that early childhood experiences with entertainment education media (such as Sesame
Street) increase an individual’s expectations for an entertainment instructional style. If such expectations are met,
the student will be more motivated and will learn more. If the expectations are not met, the student will be
unmotivated and will therefore learn less. This can be illustrated as above.
35
Questions for Consideration
1. The theorists associated with EET have not formally defined communication. Where do you think
“communication” occurs in this theory (hint: consider the contexts listed in Table 1.2)? Provide evidence
from the theory that might indicate how the theorists’ views of communication might be classified using
Dance’s three ways definitions of communication vary.
2. Using the definition of communication competence provided in this chapter, what role might
communication competence play in the EET process?
3. What are the concepts associated with EET? Why are these concepts (rather than theories or models)?
4. Which of the four types of models described in the chapter is used by the theory?
5. Describe your initial reaction to EET. Then, critically reflect on EET. How might EET fare if you
evaluated its usefulness by using the criteria described in the chapter?
36
chapter two Theory Development
Pixabay.com
37
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to do the following:
1. Describe the differences between inductive theory and deductive theory, especially in
terms of the theory development process
2. Explain the major research methods used by communication theorists, including
what they reveal and what they conceal about the communication process
3. Articulate why a particular research method is the appropriate method to answer a
research question
4. Recognize the differences between humanistic and social scientific approaches to
communication study
5. Summarize the ways theories change and grow
In Chapter 1, we defined theory as “any systematic summary about the nature of the
communication process.” We further introduced the topic of scholarly theory, which is
different from other forms of theory because it has been carefully researched. The focus of
this chapter is on the methods by which scholarly theories are created, developed, and
modified. Our first concern is the nature of how theory and research are related.
38
Theory–Research Link
As much as we would like to provide a simple answer to how theory and research are
linked, we can’t easily articulate the connection because of debate about the theory–
research relationship akin to the classic question, “Which came first, the chicken or the
egg?” In this case, scholars disagree as to what starts the process: theory or research.
Some scholars argue that research comes before theory. This approach is known as
inductive theory. Scholars using inductive theory, also known as grounded theory, believe
the best theories emerge from the results of systematic study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). That
is, these scholars observe or examine a particular topic, and, based on patterns that emerge
over time, they develop a theory; the research comes before the theory. If someone wanted
to develop a theory about how management style affects employee performance, then that
person would study management style and employee performance in great depth before
proposing a theory. Preliminary theories may be proposed, but the data continue to be
collected and analyzed until adding new data brings little to the researcher’s understanding
of the phenomenon or situation.
Figure 2.1 The Theory–Research Link
On the other hand, some scholars believe in deductive theory. Deductive theory is
generally associated with the scientific method (Reynolds, 1971). The deductive approach
requires that a hypothesis, or working theory, be developed before any research is
conducted. Once the theory has been developed, the theorist then collects data to test or
refine the theory (i.e., to support or reject the hypothesis). What follows is a constant set of
adjustments to the theory with additional research conducted until evidence in support of
the theory is overwhelming. The resulting theory is known as a law (Reynolds, 1971). In
short, deductive theory development starts with the theory and then looks at data. As an
example, a researcher might start with the idea that supportive management styles lead to
increased employee performances. The researcher would then seek to confirm his or her
theory by collecting data about those variables.
39
As indicated earlier, these two approaches represent different starting points to what is in
essence a “chicken or the egg” argument. But neither approach advocates a single cycle of
theorizing or research. Instead, both approaches suggest theories are dynamic—they are
modified as the data suggest, and data are reviewed to adjust the theory. Consider the
model depicted in Figure 2.1. We believe this is the most accurate illustration of the link
between theory and research. In this model, the starting points are different, but the reality
of a repetitive loop between theory and research is identified.
40
What Is Research?
Because research is a fundamental part of theory development, we must turn our attention
to the question of what counts as research. Frey, Botan, and Kreps (2002) described
research as “disciplined inquiry that involves studying something in a planned manner and
reporting it so that other inquirers can potentially replicate the process if they choose” (p.
13). Accordingly, we do not mean informal types of research, such as reflections on
personal experience, off-the-cuff interviews with acquaintances, or casual viewing of
communication media. When we refer to research, we mean the methodical gathering of
data as well as the careful reporting of the results of the data analysis.
Note that how the research is reported differentiates two categories of research. Primary
research is reported by the person who conducted it. It is typically published in peerreviewed academic journals. Secondary research is reported by someone other than the
person who conducted it. This is research reported in newspapers, popular or trade
magazines, handbooks and textbooks, and, frequently, the Internet. Certainly, there is value
to the dissemination of research through these media. Textbooks, for example, can
summarize hundreds of pages of research in a compact and understandable fashion. The
Internet can reach millions of people. Trade magazines can pinpoint the readers who may
benefit most from the results of the research. Regardless of whether the source is popular or
academic, however, primary research is typically valued more than secondary research as a
source of information. With secondary research, readers risk the chance that the writers
have misunderstood or inadvertently distorted the results of the research. Similar to the
childhood game of “whisper down the lane,” the message typically becomes more vague
and less accurate as it gets passed from person to person—or website to website.
41
Research Methods in Communication
Every 60 seconds almost 4 million texts are sent, Google translates nearly 70,000,000
words, Facebook users “like” a post over 4 million times, and almost a million Tinder users
swipe left or right (Dieker, 2016). Those figures are for every minute of every day.
Millennials are estimated to consume approximately 17.8 hours of media every day (Taylor,
2014). This is an astonishing number, but to put it into perspective, many of these media
forms are consumed simultaneously. It is clear that we are inundated with information. But
what value does this information have? The proliferation of verifiably fake news (i.e.,
flagrant untruths), as well as hyper-partisan stories intended to pander to readers’
preexisting beliefs, makes information literacy more important than ever. Even if you never
conduct a research study in your life, knowing which information has been methodically
collected and reported accurately will undoubtedly help you make more informed personal
and professional decisions. This section focuses on the four research methods commonly
used in the development of scholarly communication theory. When reading about these
methods, pay particular attention to the types of information revealed and concealed by
each method. This approach will allow you to be a better consumer of research.
42
Experiments
When people think of experiments, they often have flashbacks to high school chemistry
classes. People are often surprised that communication scholars also use experiments, even
though there isn’t a Bunsen burner or beaker in sight. What makes something an
experiment has nothing to do with the specific equipment or instruments involved; rather,
experimentation is ultimately concerned with causation and control. It is important to
emphasize that an experiment is the only research method that allows researchers to
conclude that one thing causes another. For example, if you are interested in determining
whether friendly customer service causes greater customer satisfaction, whether advertisers’
use of bright colors produces higher sales, or whether sexuality in film leads to a more
promiscuous society, the only way to determine these things is through experimental
research.
Experimental research allows researchers to determine causality because experiments are so
controlled. In experimental research, the researcher is concerned with two variables. A
variable is simply any concept that has two or more values (Frey et al., 2002). Sex is a
variable, because we have men and women. Note that just looking at maleness is not a
variable because there is only one value associated with it; it doesn’t vary, so it isn’t a
variable. Masculinity is considered a variable, however, because you can be highly
masculine, moderately masculine, nonmasculine, and so on.
Returning to our discussion of experimental research, then, the research is concerned with
two variables. One of the variables is the presumed cause. This is known as the
independent variable. The other is the presumed effect. This is known as the dependent
variable. If you are interested in knowing whether bright colors in advertisements cause
increased sales, your independent variable is the color (bright versus dull), and the
dependent variable is the amount of sales dollars (more, the same, or less). The way the
researcher determines causality is by carefully controlling the study participants’ exposure to
the independent variable. This control is known as manipulation, a term that commonly
conjures negative connotations but in the research world is imperative to establishing
causality. In the study of advertisements just described, the researcher would expose some
people to an advertisement that used bright colors and other people to an advertisement
that used dull colors, and she or he would observe the effects on sales based on these
manipulations.
Experiments take place in two settings. A laboratory experiment takes place in a controlled
setting so the researcher might better control efforts at manipulation. In the
communication field, laboratories often simulate living rooms or conference rooms.
Typically, however, they have two-way mirrors and cameras mounted on the walls to
record what happens. For example, John Gottman has a mini “apartment” at the University
43
of Washington. He has married couples “move in” to the apartment during the course of a
weekend, and he observes all of their interaction during that weekend.
Some experiments don’t take place in the laboratory but in participants’ natural
surroundings; these are called field experiments. These experiments often take place in
public places, such as shopping malls, libraries, or schools, but they might take place in
private areas as well. In all cases, participants must agree to be a part of the experiment to
comply with ethical standards set by educational and research institutions.
44
Surveys
The most common means of studying communication is through the use of surveys.
Market research, audience analysis, and organizational audits all make use of surveys.
Unlike experiments, the use of surveys does not allow researchers to claim one thing causes
another. The strength of survey research is that it is the only way to find out how someone
thinks, feels, or intends to behave. In other words, surveys capture people’s perception. If
you want to know what people think about your organization, how they feel about a social
issue, or whether they intend to buy a product after viewing an advertising spot you
created, you need to conduct a survey.
In general, there are two types of survey research. An interview asks participants to respond
orally. It might take place face-to-face or over the phone. One special type of interview is a
focus group, which is when the interviewer (called a facilitator) leads a small group of
people in a discussion about a specific product or program (Frey et al., 2002). A
questionnaire asks participants to respond in writing. It can be distributed by mail, via the
Internet, or administered with the researcher present. Some research is more suited for
interviews than questionnaires. Interviews allow the researcher to ask more complex
questions because he or she can clarify misunderstandings through probing questions.
Questionnaires, however, might be more appropriate for the collection of sensitive
information because they provide more anonymity to the respondent (Salant & Dillman,
1994).
The key concepts associated with either type of survey research are questioning and
sampling. First, the purpose of a survey is quite simple: to ask questions of a group of
people to understand their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Questions might take two
forms. Open-ended questions allow respondents to answer in their own words, giving as
much (or as little) information as they would like. For example, a market researcher might
ask study participants to describe what they like about a particular product. Or an
interviewer might ask someone to respond to a hypothetical situation. Closed-ended
questions require respondents to use set answers. In this case, a market researcher might say
something like “Respond to the following statement: Product X is a useful product. Would
you say you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree?”
Neither method is better than the other; the two types of questions simply provide different
kinds of data that are analyzed using different means.
The second key concept associated with survey research is sampling. Researchers are
typically concerned with large groups of people when they conduct surveys. These groups
are known as a population, which means all people who possess a particular characteristic
(Frey et al., 2002). For example, marketing firms want to study all possible consumers of a
product. Newspaper publishers want to gather information from all readers. Pharmaceutical
45
industries want to study everyone with a particular ailment. The size of these groups makes
it difficult to study everyone of interest. Even if every member of the population could be
identified, which isn’t always the case, studying all of them can be extremely expensive.
Instead, survey researchers study a sample, or a small number of people in the population of
interest. According to a basic premise in statistics known as the law of large numbers
(LLN), if a sample is well selected and of sufficient size, the survey’s results are likely also to
hold true for the entire group. A random sample, in which every member of the target
group has an equal chance of being selected, is better than a nonrandom sample, such as
volunteers, a convenience sample (college students), or a purposive sample (people who
meet a particular requirement, such as age, sex, or race). Essentially, a random sample of
consumers is more likely to give representative information about brand preferences than a
convenience sample, such as stopping people at the mall on a particular day to answer a few
questions.
46
Textual Analysis
The third method used frequently by communication scholars is textual analysis. A text is
any written or recorded message (Frey et al., 2002). A website, a transcript of a medical
encounter, and an employee newsletter can all be considered texts. Textual analysis is used
to uncover the content, nature, or structure of messages. It can also be used to evaluate
messages, focusing on their strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, or even ethicality. So
textual analysis can be used to study the amount of violence on television, how power
dynamics play out during doctor–patient intake evaluations, or even the strategies used to
communicate a corporate mission statement.
There are three distinct forms textual analyses take in the communication discipline.
Rhetorical criticism refers to “a systematic method for describing, analyzing, interpreting,
and evaluating the persuasive force of messages” (Frey et al., 2002, p. 229). There are
numerous types of rhetorical criticism, including historical criticism (how history shapes
messages), genre criticism (evaluating particular types of messages, such as political speeches
or corporate image restoration practices), and feminist criticism (how beliefs about gender
are produced and reproduced in messages).
Content analysis seeks to identify, classify, and analyze the occurrence of particular types of
messages (Frey et al., 2002). It was developed primarily to study mass-mediated messages,
although it is also used in numerous other areas of the discipline. For example, public
relations professionals often seek to assess the type of coverage given to a client. Typically,
content analysis involves four steps: the selection of a particular text (e.g., newspaper
articles), the development of content categories (e.g., “favorable organizational coverage,”
“neutral organizational coverage,” “negative organizational coverage”), placing the content
into categories, and an analysis of the results. In our example, the results of this study
would be able to identify whether a particular newspaper has a pronounced slant when
covering the organization. One modern derivation of this type of research is text mining,
also known as data mining. Data mining is the use of advanced “data analysis tools to
discover previously unknown, valid patterns and relationships in large data sets” (Seifert,
2007, p. 2). Given the immense amount of information available on the Internet,
organizations can use complex programs to sift through enormous amounts of data to
uncover the frequency and uses of particular words or ideas.
The third type of textual analysis typically conducted by communication scholars is
interaction analysis (also known as conversation analysis). These approaches typically
focus on interpersonal or group communication interactions that have been recorded, with
a specific emphasis on the nature or structure of interaction. The strength of this type of
research is that it captures the natural give-and-take that is part of most communication
experiences. The weakness of rhetorical criticism, content analysis, and interaction analysis
47
is that actual effects on the audience can’t be determined solely by focusing on texts.
48
Ethnography
Ethnography is the final research method used by scholars of communication. First used by
anthropologists, ethnography typically involves the researcher immersing himself or herself
into a particular culture or context to understand communication rules and meanings for
that culture or context. For example, an ethnographer might study an organizational
culture, such as Johnson & Johnson’s corporate culture, or a particular context, such as
communication in hospital emergency rooms. The key to this type of research is that it is
naturalistic and emergent, which means it must take place in the natural environment for
the group under study and the particular methods used adjusted on the basis of what is
occurring in that environment.
Typically, those conducting ethnographies need to decide on the role they will play in the
research. A complete participant is fully involved in the social setting, and the participants
do not know the researcher is studying them (Frey et al., 2002). This approach, of course,
requires the researcher to know enough about the environment to be able to fit in.
Moreover, there are numerous ethical hurdles the researcher must overcome. Combined,
these two challenges prevent much research from being conducted in this fashion. Instead,
participant–observer roles are more frequently chosen. In this case, the researcher becomes
fully involved with the culture or context, but he or she has admitted his or her research
agenda before entering the environment. In this way, knowledge is gained firsthand by the
researcher, but extensive knowledge about the culture is not necessarily a prerequisite (Frey
et al., 2002). Researchers choosing this strategy may also elect which to emphasize more:
participation or observation. Finally, a researcher may choose to be a complete observer.
Complete observers do not interact with the members of the culture or context, which
means they do not interview any of the members of the group under study. As such, this
method allows for the greatest objectivity in recording data, while simultaneously limiting
insight into participants’ own meanings of the observed communication.
Communication scholars use four primary research methods: experiments, which focus on
causation and control; surveys, which focus on questioning and sampling; textual analysis,
which focuses on the content, nature, or structure of messages; and ethnography, which
focuses on the communication rules and meanings in a particular culture or context. A
summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the four methods is summarized in
Table 2.1.
Because this textbook is oriented toward students who are likely to use theory and research
in the professional realm, we wish to make clear that people who work in the professions
also use research, although that research is not used to develop scholarly theory (although it
might be used to develop or refine a working theory). Marketing and public relations
professionals, human resources executives, and managers in many industries conduct
49
research as part of the creation and assessment of campaigns, for strategic planning, and for
decision making. Like academics, professionals also use experiments (typically for product
testing), surveys (especially focus groups), textual analysis (especially media monitoring),
and ethnographies of a sort (typically observations of how customers use a product).
50
Social Science and the Humanities
Thus far, we have talked about the central role research plays in the development of
theories and how research comes either before creating the theory (in the case of inductive
theory development) or after (in the case of deductive theory development). The reason for
these differing approaches can be traced back to philosophical divisions within the field of
communication. Communication has been described as both an art and a science (Dervin,
1993). On one hand, we respect the power of a beautifully crafted and creatively designed
advertisement. On the other hand, we look to hard numbers to support decisions about the
campaign featuring that advertisement. Although art and science are integrally related in
the everyday practice of communication, in the more abstract realm of theory the two are
often considered distinct pursuits. This concept can be traced to distinctions between the
academic traditions of the humanities (which includes the arts) and the social sciences.
You might have some ideas about the terms humanistic and social scientific because most
college students are required to take some courses in each of these areas. The distinctions
between the humanities and social science are based on more than just tradition, however;
they are based on very different philosophical beliefs. The interpretation of meaning is of
central concern in the humanities (Littlejohn, 2002). Meaning is presumed to be subjective
and unique to the individual, even though meaning is likely influenced by social processes.
For individuals trained in the humanistic approach, subjectivity is a hallmark; one’s own
interpretation is of interest. Think about the study of English literature, a discipline at the
heart of the humanities. English scholars study the interpretation of texts in an effort to
understand the meaning of the object of study.
On the other hand, objectivity is a central feature of social science. Social scientists believe
that through careful standardization (i.e., objectivity), researchers can observe patterns of
communication that can hold true for all (or most) people, all (or most) of the time. These
patterns that hold true across groups, time, and place are known as generalizations. To
illustrate, psychology is a discipline rooted in the social sciences. As such, psychology
scholars seek to explain general principles of how the human mind functions. These
principles are intended to explain all people, all over the world, throughout history.
Because the humanities and social sciences have different areas of interest, they treat theory
and research differently. Table 2.2 seeks to identify some of those distinctions. The first
area of difference is the philosophical commitment to understanding the nature of human
beings and the extent of their free will. Certainly, no one believes human beings are mere
puppets who have no choice in how they behave. Communication theorists vary, however,
in the extent to which they believe people act versus react to communication. For example,
social scientists tend to follow determinism, which means they believe past experience,
personality predispositions, and a number of other antecedent conditions cause people to
51
behave in certain ways. Accordingly, deterministic approaches to human interaction
propose that people in general tend to react to situations. Social scientists tend to look at
the causes and effects of communication, such as what causes a marriage to fail or the
effects of a particular marketing campaign.
Conversely, most humanists believe people have control over their behavior and make
conscious choices to communicate to meet their goals. Theorists taking this stance are
called pragmatists because they believe people are practical and plan their behavior.
Pragmatism believes human beings are not passive reactors to situations but dynamic
actors. Humanists, then, tend to focus on the choices people (or organizations) make, such
as United Airlines’ ineffective public relations response to a series of videos depicting
callous—and violent—treatment of passengers.
A second way to differentiate between humanistic and social scientific scholarship is
through a focus on why theories are developed. For example, the goal of social scientific
theory is to both understand and predict communication processes. Because social science is
interested in generalizations, the ability to predict is paramount. If a theorist understands
the general pattern at the heart of a social scientific theory, she or he should be able to
predict how any one individual might communicate. Those in the humanities, however,
believe interpretations are always subjective; they are unique to the individual. Accordingly,
humanists believe theorists can never actually predict how a person will behave; all that can
be done is to try to understand human communication.
Although not directly related to the distinction between social science and the humanities,
we note that some theories strive to do more than simply predict or understand. A special
group of theories, called critical approaches, seeks to improve the world through social
change. The goal of critical theory is to empower people in their professional and personal
lives. For more information on critical communication theory, see Craig (1999).
The third difference between social science and the humanities is the process of theory
development. Recall our discussion of the theory–research link discussed earlier in the
chapter. Deductive theory is based on the scientific method, so it should be no surprise that
the social scientific approach to theory development is deductive. Those in the humanities,
however, tend to start with data and subsequently develop theory. For example, scholars of
English literature would start with reading Shakespeare’s plays before developing a theory
about them. Thus, those in the humanities tend to use inductive theory development.
Finally, the focus and methods of research also vary in the social scientific and humanistic
approaches. The focus of research for the social scientific method is on standardization and
control. Because of these objectives, social scientists incrementally study narrowly defined
areas at a time, believing the whole picture will be uncovered eventually. This approach is
known as particularism. Humanists, on the other hand, believe in looking at the big
picture; they propose that all pieces of the puzzle contribute to an understanding of the
52
problem. Accordingly, they use holism, looking at the situation in its entirety, as the focal
point of research.
Given the different areas of focus, it’s not a surprise that the final difference between social
scientists and humanists is the research methods they use. Earlier in this chapter, we
discussed the four research methods used by communication scholars. Of the four, one is
clearly social scientific, and one is clearly humanistic. Experimental methods, with their
concern for causation and control, are uniquely suited for the social sciences. Remember
that social science seeks to make predictions, and the best way to do that is to have research
that supports particular causes and effects. Similarly, ethnography is uniquely suited for
humanistic research. Ethnography leans to the understanding of communication in
contexts and cultures, which is appropriate for theory that uses holism in its quest for
interpretation of communicative events.
The uses of survey research and textual analysis cannot be easily classified. Instead of the
methods themselves being associated with either social science or the humanities, the
specific way data are analyzed determines whether the method is social scientific or
humanistic. The two methods of data analysis are quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative
methods are adapted from those used in the hard sciences, such as chemistry and biology.
Accordingly, quantitative methods are associated with social science. Qualitative methods
are those that have historically been used by the humanities.
Quantitative methods typically rely on numbers or statistics as the data source (Reinard,
1998). These data and statistics are generally explanatory and comprehensive; they seek to
predict what will happen for large groups of people. To accomplish this, researchers control
the study by identifying the variables of interest before data collection takes place and
trying to prevent extraneous influences from affecting the data. As described earlier, these
commitments allow social scientists to make generalizations.
Qualitative methods reject the limitations on individual interpretation that control
requires. Moreover, qualitative research eschews the use of numbers and uses verbal
descriptions of communicative phenomena. Typically, the data are in the form of extended
quotes or transcripts of communication. Finally, qualitative research typically centers on a
description or critique of communication rather than on generalizations (Reinard, 1998).
Social scientists tend to use quantitative surveys or textual analyses. For example, they’ll
collect data about how many people prefer a new formulation of a product versus a
previous formulation of a product or how frequently a manager uses a particular
communication strategy in interaction. Humanists tend to use qualitative surveys and
textual analyses. They ask participants to respond at length to questions in their own words
about a particular product, or they identify various communication themes evident in a
corporate brochure.
53
A final note should be made about the distinctions between social science and the
humanities. The purpose of talking about these two academic traditions is because
communication is both social scientific and humanistic. As such, you shouldn’t view these
distinctions as dichotomies but as continua. Individual theories may be more or less social
scientific or humanistic (not either/or), with elements borrowed from both traditions.
54
How Theories Change and Grow
Our final concern in this chapter is to be clear that once developed, theories continue to
change and grow. As we indicated in Figure 2.1, whether a researcher starts with the theory
or starts with research, theory development continues the loop between research and
theory, refining, modifying, and extending the theory. Specifically, Kaplan (1964) argues
that theories can change by extension or by intention. Growth by extension means the
theory adds more concepts and builds on what was already established. For example, in
1959 Thibaut and Kelley created interdependence theory, which is described in Chapter 5.
One central aspect of the theory is the prediction that relationship dependence (otherwise
known as commitment) can be determined by examining an individual’s satisfaction with
the relationship, as well as his or her perception of the availability and quality of alternatives
to the relationship. Caryl Rusbult (1980), a student of John Thibaut, continued working
on the theory and presented an expanded version of the theory, which she called the
investment model. Her model argues that looking at satisfaction and alternatives is not
enough to predict commitment; one also has to examine how much an individual has
invested in the relationship. That is, people who are unhappy in their relationship, and who
believe they can find a better partner, might stay in the relationship because they have
invested a great deal of time, money, or even love, and they don’t want to “lose” their
investment. Thus, we can conclude that interdependence theory has grown through
extension because a new concept—investment—was added to the theory to make its
predictions more robust.
Conversely, growth by intension means scholars gain a deeper and more nuanced
understanding of the original concepts presented in the theory. For example,
communication accommodation theory, which is described in Chapter 6, was originally
called speech accommodation theory, as the focus was purely on how our dialects and word
choice varied based on to whom an individual was speaking. However, researchers quickly
realized that accommodation occurs in other areas of verbal and nonverbal communication,
such as speaking rate, politeness, and listening (see Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005, for a
review). The theory has grown by intension; the same principles of accommodation are still
acknowledged by the theory, and no new concepts were added. Instead, additional research
has allowed scholars to understand more fully the complex ways accommodation occurs,
adding to the scope of the theory.
Summary
In this chapter, we looked at how theories are developed and changed. We looked at two ways to create
theory: inductive and deductive theory development. We discussed the links between theory and research,
and we differentiated between primary and secondary research. We also identified the four primary research
methods used by communication scholars: experiments, surveys, textual analysis, and ethnography. In
addition to describing the key elements of each of these methods, the chapter focused on what each reveals
and conceals about communication. Next, we turned our attention to the differences between social
55
scientific and humanistic approaches to theory and research, centering our discussion on beliefs about
human nature, the goal of theory, the development of theory, the focus of research, and the research
methods used. Finally, we talked about how theories change through the processes of extension and
intention.
56
Key Terms
Closed-ended questions 21
Complete observer 23
Complete participant 23
Content analysis 22
Deductive theory 18
Dependent variable 20
Determinism 24
Ethnography 23
Experiment 20
Extension 27
Field experiment 20
Focus group 21
Generalization 24
Humanistic approach 24
Independent variable 20
Inductive theory 17
Intension 28
Interaction analysis/conversation analysis 22
Interpretation 24
Interview 21
Laboratory experiment 20
Manipulation 20
Nonrandom sample 21
Objectivity 24
Open-ended questions 21
Participant-observer 23
Particularism 25
Population 21
Pragmatism 25
Primary research 19
Qualitative 26
Quantitative 26
Questionnaire 21
Random sample 21
Rhetorical criticism 22
Sampling 21
Secondary research 19
Social scientific approach 25
Subjectivity 24
57
Survey research 21
Text/data mining 22
Textual analysis 22
Variable 20
58
Case Study 2: Education as Entertainment Reconsidered
In Chapter 1 you were introduced to a theory called education as entertainment theory (EET). We want you to
reconsider EET, relying on what you learned in this chapter, as well as the following additional information.
In order to test EET, we conducted a survey. We created a questionnaire, which asked about age, sex, the
frequency of viewing Sesame Street and other educational media, and expectations for instructional style,
motivation, and perceived learning. For the expectations for instructional style, motivation, and perceived
learning, we asked survey respondents to respond to the four teaching styles using a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale, with
1 representing “not at all” and 5 indicating “always.”
59
Survey
On average, how often did you watch educational television (for example, Sesame Street) or use educational media
(e.g., computer games, apps) when you were a child? (circle one) Not at All | Very Little | Occasionally | Every
Week | Every Day
To what extent do you expect college professors to use the following teaching styles (check one for each style)?
To what extent would each style motivate you to want to learn (check one for each style)?
To what extent do you think you actually learn using the following styles (check one for each style)?
We distributed the questionnaire to 75 current college students and 75 adults over the age of 50. We choose age
50 because those individuals would have been in school already when Sesame Street appeared and before the
advent of personal computer technology. There were 58 female and 17 male college students. There were 51
female and 14 male adults.
Our results showed that the average report of using educational media was 3.7 out of 5 for the college students,
corresponding to frequent use of educational media. The average amount of using educational media was 2.2 for
the adults, corresponding to very little use of educational media. Accordingly, the college students consumed
more educational media than the adults did as children.
The remaining average answers are calculated in the following chart, with the instructional style listed in the farleft column and the mean expectation, motivation, and learning score for the two groups in the remaining
columns.
60
In looking at the chart, the only significant difference when considering entertainment education is in
motivation, with college students reporting being motivated by entertainment education to a larger extent than
adults. However, neither group seems to expect a whole lot of entertainment education, and neither group
reports learning a lot from entertainment education. Thus, the predictions of EET are not fully supported.
61
Questions for Consideration
1. Based on what you read in Chapter 1 and the additional information just provided, was EET developed
using an inductive or a deductive theory development process? Why?
2. What type of research (primary or secondary) was used in the development of EET? Was this a good
choice?
3. Is EET social scientific or humanistic? Provide details from the information in Chapter 1 and this chapter
to support your case.
4. Which research method was used to test the theory? Is this the best method? Why, or why not?
5. Discuss what ethical challenges researchers should consider when conducting this type of research. How
do ethical challenges shift if the research method changes?
6. In what ways do you think EET should change or grow in the future? Be specific in detailing how it
might change and why it should change in that manner.
62
chapter three Cognition and Intrapersonal
Communication
Pixabay.com
63
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to do the following:
1. Make predictions about the intentionality of behavior using Kelley’s covariation
model (consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and locus of control)
2. Identify types of, conditions, and communicative strategies for reducing uncertainty
3. Use the concepts of expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence
to predict whether someone will reciprocate or compensate a violation
4. Explain how, by increasing or decreasing the magnitude of dissonance between
beliefs and behaviors, one can influence or prevent change
5. Compare and contrast the major theoretical approaches to intrapersonal
communication
6. Provide systematic understanding of a professional situation by employing theories of
intrapersonal communication
Regardless of whether you take a source or receiver orientation to communication, messages
have no meaning without an individual’s interpretation. Everyone has to process every
message internally while considering how best to make sense of these messages. In other
words, meaning is derived only after an individual perceives a message and gives it meaning;
meaning resides in our interpretations of words or actions, not in the words or behaviors
themselves. Consequently, communication is also an intrapersonal process.
64
Cognitive Process
The roots of communication as an intrapersonal process can be traced to one of the major
debates in psychology in the 20th century. At the beginning of the 1900s, American
psychology was dominated by a focus on behaviorism (Runes, 1984). Most of us are
familiar with Pavlov and his studies of salivary production in dogs. By associating the
ringing of a bell with food, Pavlov was able to experimentally cause dogs to salivate when
hearing a bell, even if the food was not present. Such is a description of a behavioral
approach—a focus on external cause and behavioral effect. Major psychological figures such
as J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner argued that because we cannot observe mental processes,
we should focus only on these causes and effects (Runes, 1984).
However, in the middle part of the 1900s, psychologists began arguing for a cognitive
approach to understanding human behavior. Rather than focusing solely on external causes
(or stimuli) and behavioral effects, these scholars argued we should be concerned with the
mental processes used to process stimuli and generate particular effects (Runes, 1984). A
major proponent of this approach was Noam Chomsky, who spearheaded a significant
critique of behaviorism. Cognition, then, includes the processes of reducing, elaborating,
transforming, and storing stimuli (Neisser, 1967). It refers to what happens in the mind
that causes us to behave in particular ways.
In this chapter, we explain four theories that examine the cognitive and intrapersonal
aspects of communication. Fi…