The Nature of Contemporary Communication Theory

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Human communication is a complex process which involves social and psychological mechanisms. Communication is made up largely of the talking that people do when they get together. Contemporary communication proposes different explanations and understanding of human communication and its mechanisms. To explain the nature of the subject, the paper will be based on three communication theories, FIRO theory by William Schutz, Groupthink developed by Irving Janis, social exchange theory by John Thibaut & Harold Kelley, and proxemic theory by Edward Hall.

In general, definitions of “communication” fall into two broad categories. In one category are those definitions which limit the process of communication to those stimulus-response situations in which one deliberately transmits stimuli to evoke response. In the other category are those definitions that include within the area of communication stimulus-response situations in which there need not be any intention of evoking response in the transmission of the stimuli (West and Turner 2006). The second category obviously overlaps the first. West and Turner (2006) state that when someone gains certain impressions of someone else the latter is communicating something to the former. The importance and value of viewing communication as response become apparent. It is evident from the classification and application of the definitions that in the first category the concept of the process of communication is from the point of vie of the transmitter of stimuli, and in the second category, from the point of view of the person responding (Littlejohn and Foss 2007). Looking at the process of communication from the transmitter’s point of view provides the most obvious method of delimiting the area of behavior to be treated as communication, and consequently simplifies the problem of definition. If someone is transmitting stimuli for the purpose of evoking response there is communication; otherwise there is none (West and Turner 2006).

William Schutz underlines that needs are the main drivers of communication. He tested the hypothesis that persons with different but complementary patterns on certain personality characteristics are most compatible, hence make the most effective groups. Following Griffin (1991);

“FIR0 is an elaborate theory of interpersonal needs that claims to account for both the what and the why of an individual’s actions toward others. According to Schutz, all humans possess three needs to a greater or lesser degree. They are the needs for inclusion, control, and affection”.

FIRO theory (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation) developed in 1958 is based three human needs: (1) need for inclusion, (2) need for control, (3) need for affection. Schutz combined pairs of people in terms of the strength of their needs to give and to receive inclusion (belongingness), control, and affection. The compatible pairs were those in which member A had a high need to give inclusion, control, and/or affection to others, while member B had a high need to receive inclusion, control, and/or affection. He compared such compatible groups with pairs in which the two members had similar patterns of these needs (for example, both members had high needs to give affection or inclusion or control), and with other pairs whose members had different but non0complementary patterns of needs (e.g., member A had a high need to give control while member B had a high need to receive affection) (Littlejohn and Foss 2007).. He found the compatible pairs to be more effective on relatively complex group problem-solving tasks, although the different types of groups were about equal on easy tasks. “Schutz claims that once we’ve seen people in action, we will be able to predict their future behavior with reasonable certainty” (Griffin 1991). He underlines that effectiveness of communication depends also on the personalities of its members (Littlejohn and Foss 2007).

In “An Overview of Persuasibility Research,” Irving Janis demonstrates how personality factors influence one’s response to varying forms of social influence. Also discussed in the essay are the importance of predispositional factors in personality–those accounting for individual differences in the observed effects of com- munication when all communication stimuli are held constant. In successful groups, individuals learn to work together. They become a cohesive group as they work on specific tasks or projects. However, cohesive groups may develop and implement strategies that are inappropriate. This behavior is attributed to changes in the group’s reaction to new or conflicting information. Cohesive groups tend to close themselves off to unsettling information, whether from inside or outside the group. This behavior was labeled groupthink by Janis (1972, 1982). Following Griffin (1991):

Janis originally defined groupthink as ‘‘a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

According to his definition, groupthink occurs only when cohesiveness is high. The groupthink decision-making procedure is defective, with premature convergence on a single option and the closing-off of sources of alternative information and courses of action. Although the decisions are poorly conceived, they are endorsed in both settings. It is also exceedingly difficult for a group or individual to admit fault. Groupthink’s antecedent conditions are easily specified: the group is cohesive, insulated, and homogeneous and has neither a tradition of impartial leadership nor norms requiring a systematic information search. Defective decisions are triggered by provocative situational contexts, composed of high stress from external threats, low self-esteem of group members, and decisions that involve questions of morality. Faced with an intolerably elevated degree of uncertainty, individuals seek greater affiliation with the group as a protective device. Together it produces overestimations of the group — that it is invulnerable, inherently moral, and superior (Severin and Tankard 2000).

In groupthink, however, the group is guilty of poor decision making, and because group members have surrendered their separate identities, they are exonerated from individual responsibility. Janis suggests that

Every executive who participates in group decisions is potentially susceptible to groupthink. Irrespective of the personality characteristics and other predispositions of the members who make up the policy-making group, the groupthink syndrome is expected to emerge whenever the situational conditions that are conducive to it are present” (p. 243 cited miller 2004, p. 56).

A key point emphasized by Janis is that when many or all individuals within a group privately express doubts about the group’s decisions or processes while publicly supporting them and are aware that their reservations are shared by many or all other group members, the group’s decisions will often result in a fiasco. The distinction raises a troubling issue of morality and responsibility. Janis illuminates the individual’s inability to speak out, and his or her awareness mitigates the capacity to deflect culpability (Severin and Tankard 2000).

Edward Hall (1963), who proposed the term “proxemics,” has published a system for transcribing actions generally falling under that rubric. His ‘proxemic notation system” includes a representation of posture, the angle between the shoulders of two interactants, the distance between interactants, the type of touching (if any) that occurs, the directness of visual contact (if any), the body heat detected by the interactants, the odors detected by the interactants, and voice loudness (a dimension describable through paralanguage) (Severin and Tankard 2000). In a later publication, Hall (1966) hypothesizes a set of distance zones that are socially significant for “non-contact, middleclass, healthy adults, mainly natives of the northeastern seaboard of the United States (p. 110 cited Miller 2004, p. 87). While there is now extensive literature on spatial arrangements in face-to-face interaction, there has been virtually no empirical work published on such proxemic factors as touching, heat detection, and social olfaction for humans (Severin and Tankard 2000).

As mentioned above, more than one convention may be available within a culture to handle some aspect of the interaction (such as the greeting, or proxemic arrangement, or topic of conversation). When there is more than one such convention, the alternative conventions may not always be equally appropriate in all interactions. It is necessary, therefore, to specify for each convention those times, places, etc., when it may be appropriately used. Accordingly, each convention will be said to have a set of situational requirements, describable in terms of a set of entities, categorizations, and specific categories within those categorizations. For each convention, these situational requirements state those entities, categorizations, and categories that must apply to an interaction event, in order for the convention to be appropriately used in that event (Severin and Tankard 2000). “If Hall’s critics are less than enthusiastic about the details of his proxemic theory, they have to admire its impact. At a time when nonverbal communication theory remains in short supply, his ideas capture the imagination of a wide audience and continue to generate a large body of proxemic research” (Griffin 1991).

In contrast to psychodynamic thinking, social exchange theory views social relationships in terms of their more immediate and surface benefits Thibaut and Kelley (1959). From this perspective, individuals engage in social behavior that is rewarding, and relationships develop and persist over time to the extent that each individual involved can provide resources of value to the other. They suggest that the major kinds of rewards exchanged are love, status, information, money, goods, and services. According to these writers, relationships may begin with the exchange of tangible and universal resources (for example, goods and services), but close relationships are marked by symbolic and particularistic exchanges (for example, signs of affection) in which the identity of exchange participants is crucially important.

Social exchange theory assumes that we can accurately anticipate the payoffs of a variety of interactions. Our minds are like computers, and a computer analysis is only as good as the data that are fed in (Griffin 1991).

Further, although early theory viewed resources as equivalent, subject only to the valuation of participants, Thibaut and Kelley have proposed that some types of resources are redeemable only in kind — that one cannot buy love, for example. The cohesion of relationships depends on the reciprocal exchange of both benefits and costs, as well as on each individual’s history and perception of current alternatives. Thus, an equitable exchange of rewards has been found to be related to satisfaction with dating relationships (West and Turner 2006). Similarly, equity in the form of meeting expectations for mutual role performance has been shown to play a key role in satisfaction with marital relationships as well as in their stability and dissolution. Relationships are seen as developing with exchanges becoming more frequent, diverse, and greater in magnitude and risk. Thus, self-disclosures of ever greater intimacy are exchanged as a relationship progresses (West and Turner 2006). Tolerance for short-term deviations in reciprocity is far greater in close and long-term relationships than in less intimate and established ones, reflecting a history of trust, the cost of developing new relationships, and the high cumulative balance of exchanges in the relationship. From the social exchange perspective, individuals may have more or less of value to offer: some individuals may be advantaged, with many resources and favorable exchange conditions, whereas others may have little to offer and have little choice but to engage in unfavorable exchanges within relatively unsatisfying relationships. “Thus social exchange theory provides another thread of interest in social relationships and well-being” (West and Turner 2006, p. 76).

Following Miller (2004) comparatively recent discussion of social relationships shares the view that they may provide a variety of benefits. In his discussion of the provisions of social relationships, Miller (2004) presented ideas that were to influence a number of social support researchers (Henderson et al. 1978; Turner, Frankel, and Levin 1983 cited Miller 2004) and provide the basis for several measures. Littlejohn and Foss (2007) propose a model based on the assumption that some requirements for psychological wellbeing can only be met through social relationships. They argue that individuals maintain relationships in order to gain their provisions and that, in general, particular provisions require specialized relationships with distinct underlying assumptions. Six provisions of social relationships were identified, at least five of which bear some conceptual similarity to later descriptions of social support (West and Turner 2006).

A practical application of this theory is discussed by Severin and Tankard (2000). For instance, marital satisfaction is often conceptualized in terms of the ratio of rewards to costs associated with the relationship. Reducing aversive exchanges is a central goal of behavioral interventions, particularly when distress is intense. Increasing positive exchanges is also of considerable importance. Indeed, sustaining positive exchanges and developing direct and open communication take central place in relationship enhancement interventions. The latter goal has a good deal in common with that of natural helper training projects discussed below. Such exchanges are no doubt a prerequisite to general supportive functions and often actually constitute supportive behavior. Only empirical research will establish the degree to which this is so, and the topic has not been directly addressed. The provision of high quality support is a central function of marital and family relationships and an important criterion in judging their soundness (West and Turner 2006).

In sum, human communication is complex process influenced by a wide variety of factors. Modern communication theories try to explain motives and mechanisms of communication, influence of cultural and social factors of human behavior. They underline that the benefits derived from social relationships are diverse and may be of idiosyncratic and situational value, that relationships require reciprocity over time, and that they develop and persist in a context.

References

Griffin, E. A First Look at Communication Theory by Em Griffin, McGraw-Hill, Inc 1991, 2007. Web.
Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K. A. Theories of Human Communication. Wadsworth Publishing; 9 edition, 2007.
Miller, K. Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 2 edition, 2004.
Severin, W. J., Tankard, J. W. (2000). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. Allyn & Bacon; 5 edition.
West, R. L., Turner, L. H. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 3 edition, 2006.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Nature of Contemporary Communication Theory

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)