MCC 501 THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION FIRST SEMESTER, 2011/2012 ASSIGNMENT 1 ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION THEORY (INDIVIDUAL PROJECT)

NAME ID NO PROGRAMME LECTURERS NAME

: : : :

GOMALA A/P SUKUMARAN 113008044 MASTER IN COMMUNICATION DR.MOHD NIZAM OSMAN

Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY..................................................................2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS OF URT.................................................................................3 URT MODEL.....................................................................................................3 CRITIQUE ON URT.......................................................................................4-5

SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY...........................................................................6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 ASSUMPTIONS ON SPT..................................................................................7 STAGES OF THE SPT.......................................................................................7 THE ONION ANALOGY.................................................................................8 CRITIQUE ON SPT...........................................................................................9

4.0 5.0

COMMUNICATION SITUATION..............................................................................10 USE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY IN THE COMMUNICATION ........... SITUATION..................................................................................................................11 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................12 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................13

6.0 7.0

1.0

Introduction

Communication is a social process in which individuals employ symbols to establish and interpret meaning in their environment.Communication involves people and interactions, whether face-to-face or online who acts as senders and receivers.Communication is a process that it is ongoing and unending. (West, 2010) Each day the decision we make, the media we look into, and the relationships we experience can be explained by communication theory. Communication theory helps us to understand other people and their communities, the media and our association with families, friends, roommates and companions. Communication theory makes it easier to understand ourselves. There are over sixty communication theories which has been introduced by Dr.Nizam. I will be using only two communication theories for this assignment. That includes, Uncertainty Reduction Theory Social Penetration Theory

2.0

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Sometimes called Initial Interaction Theory, Uncertainty Reduction Theory was originated by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese in 1975.Berger and Calabreses goal in contructing this theory was to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainties between strangers engaging in their first conversation together.Berger and Calabrase believe that when strangers first meet, they are primarily concerned with increasing predictability in an effort to make sense out of theor communication experience. Prediction can be defined as the ability to forecast the behavioral options likely to be chosen from a range of possible options.Explanation refers to attempts to intrepret the meaning of past actions in a relationship.These two concepts prediction and explanation make up the two primary subprocess of uncertainty reduction theory. After Berger and Calabrase (1975) originated their theory, it was later slightly elaborated (Berger, 1979; Berger and Bradac, 1982).The current version of the theory suggests that there are two types of uncertainty in initial encounters : cognitive and behavioral. Our cognitions refer to the beliefs and attitudes that we and others hold. Cognitive uncertainty, therefore, refers to the degree of uncertainty associated with those beliefs and attitudes.Behavioral uncertainty, on the other hand, pertains to the extent to which behaviour is predictable in a given situation. Berger and Calabrese (1975) argued that uncertainty reduction has both proactive and retroactive processes. Proactive uncertainty reduction theory comes into play when a person thinks about communication options before actually engaging with another person.Retroactive uncertainty reduction consists of attempts to explain behaviour after the encounter itself. Berger and Calabrese suggest that uncertainty is related to seven other concepts rooted in communcation and relational development : verbal output, non verbal warmth (such as pleasant vocal tone and leaning forward), information seeking (asking questions), selfdisclosure, reciprocity of disclosure, similarity, and liking. Each of these works in conjuntion with the others so that interactants can reduce some of their uncertainty. (West, 2010)

2.1

Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Theories are frequently grounded in assumptions that reflect the worldview of the theorists. Uncertainty Reduction Theory is no exception. The following assumptions frame this theory People experience uncertainty in interpersonal settings. Uncertainty is an aversive state, generating cognitive stress. When strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce their uncertainty or to increase predictablity. Interpersonal communication is a developmental process that occurs through stages. Interpersonal communication is the primary means of uncertainty reduction. The quantity and nature of information that people share change through time. It is possible to predict peoples behaviour in a lawlike fashion.

2.2

Uncertainty Reduction Model

(Brashers, 2010)

2.3

Critiques on Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Over a decade after the publication of the original theory, Berger admitted that Uncertainty Reduction Theory "contains some propositions of dubious validity" . Although URT has stimulated a great deal of discussion and research, it also has been criticized. Basically, the critics find fault in two areas of the theory: the assumptions and its validity. Some researchers believe that the major assumptions of the theory are flawed. Michael Sunnafrank (1986) argues that reducing uncertainty about the self and another in an initial encounter is not an individual's primary concern. Instead, Sunnafrank argues, "a more primary goal is the maximization of relational outcomes" . Sunnafrank calls for a reformulation of URT that takes into account the importance of predicted outcomes during initial interactions. This has come to be known as predicted outcome value (POV). Berger's (1986) response to Sunnafrank is that outcomes cannot be predicted without knowledge and reduced uncertainty about oneself, one's partner, and one's relationship. It is Berger's contention that uncertainty reduction is independent of as well as necessary to predicted outcome values. In fact, he believes that if one remains highly uncertain, there really are no predicted outcome values. Further, Berger responds to Sunnafrank's critique by noting that the act of predicting an outcome serves as a means to reduce uncertainty. Thus, Berger concludes that Sunnafrank has simply expanded the scope of URT rather than offering an alternative to it. The second area of criticism of URT has to do with its validity. Recall that even Berger (1987) has admitted some validity problems. Yet, he is not willing to give up on the theory. Some of his more skeptical colleagues, however, assert that given the tight logical structure of an axiomatic theory, if one building block is wrong, then much of the resulting theory is suspect. Kathy Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990) point to Axiom 3, which suggests that high uncertainty causes high levels of information-seeking behavior, as problematic. Their study of over a thousand students failed to find support for the third axiom. Instead, they found that "wanting knowledge rather than lacking knowledge is what promotes information-seeking in initial encounters with others" . Kellermann and Reynolds point out that many times we may be uncertain about another but because we have no interest in the other, we are not motivated to reduce our uncertainties by information-seeking behaviors. People engage in communication, therefore, not to reduce uncertainty but because they care about the other, are interested in the other, or both Uncertainty Reduction Theory has made a very important contribution to the field of communication, even if it does not fully explain the communication in initial encounters

between strangers. It marks the beginning of communication researchers focusing on their own discipline for theoretical explanations rather than borrowing theories from other disciplines. Further, it provides an ongoing dialogue as researchers continue to debate the validity of uncertainty reduction as a primary issue in relationship development.

3.0

Social Penetration Theory

When we say were close to someone, we often act as though others understand precisely what we mean. That is not always the case, however. Saying that you are close or intimate with someone may not be universally understood. To understand relational closeness between two people, Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor (1973) conceptualized Social Penetration Theory (SPT). The two conducted extensive study in the area of social bonding among various types of couples. Their theory illustrates a pattern of relationship development, a process that they identified as social penetration. Social penetration refers to a process of relationship bonding whereby individuals move from superficial communication to more intimate communication. According to Altman and Taylor, intimacy involves more than physical initmacy; other dimensions of intimacy include intellectual and emotional and the extent to which a couple share activities (West and Turner,2009). The social penetration process, includes verbal behaviors (the words we use), nonverbal behaviors (our body posture, the extent to which we smile, and so forth), and environmentally oriented behaviors (the space between communicators, the physical objects present in the environment, and so forth. Altman and Taylor (1973) believe that peoples relationship vary tremendously in their social penetration . From husband-wife to supervisor-employee to golf partners to physician-patient, the theorists conclude that relationships involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or degree of social penetration. The authors note that relationships follow some particular trajectory, or pathway to closeness.

3.1

Assumptions of Social Penetration Theory

Social Penetration Theory (called a stage theory by Mongeau & Henningsen, 2008) has enjoyed widespread acceptance by a number of scholars in the communication discipline. Part of the reason for the theorys appeal is its straightforward approach to relationship development. Although we alluded to some assumptions earlier, we will explore the following assumptions that guide SPT: 3.2 Relationships progress from nonintimate to intimate. Relational development is generally systematic and predictable. Relational devlopment includes depenetration and dissolution. Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development. Stages of the Social Penetration Process

The decision about whether a potential relationship appears satisfying is not immediate. Social Penetration Theory is viewed as a Stage theory. Relationship development occurs in a rather systematic manner, and decisions about whether people want to remain in a relationship are not usually made quickly. Not all relationships go through this process, and those that do are not always romantic relationships.

ORIENTATION Revealing bits of ourselves to others.

EXPLORATORY AFFECTIVE EXCHANGE Emergence of an individual's personality

AFFECTIVE EXCHANGE Spontaneous communication; use of personal idioms

STABLE EXCHANGE Efficient communication; establishment of a personal system of communication

Figure 1 : Stages of Social Penetration Theory

3.3

The Onion Analogy

Theorists believe that people can be compared to an onion. The outer layer is the individuals public image or what is seen with the naked eye. Reciprocity the process whereby one persons openness leads to others openness. It has been shown to be significant in both established and new relationships.

Penetration can be viewed along two dimensions: Breadth refers to the number of various topics discussed in the relationship. Breadth time pertains to the amount of time that relational partners spend communicating with each other about other topics. Depth refers to the degree of intimacy that guides topic discussions.

3.4

Critique on Social Penetration Theory

3.4.1 Heurism There can be no doubt that Social Penetration Theory and the concept of self disclosure has yielded literally hundreds of studies. Therefore, we believe SPT is a highly heuristic theory.

3.4.2 Scope One could say that the scope of SPT is limited. Some scholars contend that self disclosure in particular may be too narrowly interpreted. People are constantly changing, they argue that what is considered to be self-disclosure often depends on the attitudes of a relational partner.

4.0

Communication Situation

As soon as completing my diploma, It was finally my time to continue degree. I browsed on the net looking for a good university whereelse my other friends had already applied for other universities. Finally after few consideration I choosed KLIUC to pursue my degree in Corporate Communication. It was mid February when I came to register as a student. I was told that the orientation was around March and it was compulsory for everyone to attend. I had to stay in hostel and was given double sharing room. During the registration week, i enquired the lady in the office regarding my roomate. Eventually, she gave me her full name and my luck that I found her through facebook.We had checked out one another on Facebook, emailed each other, and talked on the phone few times, so we knew quite a bit about each other.When we met, we started talking each other. We spent a lot of time telling stories about our families and friends, and talking about what we looked for in a partner. After several weeks we became closer. We started going out for movies together and hang out together. We started exploring each other better by introducing our parents as well. Our orietation was for a week, but we decided not attend as we felt it was not important for us. During the one week we got to know each other better and I knew a lot about her family, her likes and dislikes and so on. During the second week, all the classes had started. We had to balance our desire to hang-out each other with the need to be alone. This is because I am a communication student meanwhile she is an engineering student.It was going to be give-and take because our schedules were completely opposite. Eventually, we both became great friends and we still keep in touch everyday even tough we are far apart. We will make it an effort to send at least one sms in a day to strengthen our relationship as shes from Pulau Pinang and and I am from Seremban. Thus, we find it difficult to meet. We will only be able to meet once a year during Chinese New Year holidays.

5.0

Use of Communication Theory in the Communication Situation First, we as roomates supported the Uncertainty Reduction Theory o We gathered a lot of information about each other by asking question. o This means we reduce the uncertainty about each other. o More information was shared among us to enhance our relationships. Next, we as roomates supported the Social Penetration Theory o We self-dislcosed about each other. o We can relate this to the onion metaphor whereby the outer layer will her physical appreance. I would judge her by her looks, of what kind person. o Next is the amount of information that we want to reveal to each other. This is when we discussed about each others families and even intoduced our parent. o Breadth is when we discussed about our personal information, whereby some personal information can only be disclosed to some close friends. o As time goes on we frequently discussed about our personal problems and often find solutions together.

6.0

Conclusion

Each day the decision we make, the media we look into, and the relationships we experience can be explained by communication theory. Communication theory helps us to understand other people and their communities, the media and our association with families, friends, roommates and companions. Communication theory makes it easier to understand ourselves. I have discussed two theories in this assignment. Namely Uncertainty Reduction Theory Social Penetration Theory

I have also included a communication situation that happened in my life and how it relates to those mentioned theories. When strangers meet, their primary focus is on reducing their level of uncertainty in the situation because uncertainty is uncomfortable. People can be uncertain on two different levels: behavioral and cognitive. They may be unsure of how to behave (or how the other person will behave) and they may also be unsure of what they think of the other person and what the other person thinks of them. High levels of uncertainty are related to a variety of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Inrerpersonal relationships evolve in some gradual and predictable fashion. Social Peneteration theorists believe that self-dislcosure is the primary way that superficial relationships progress to intimate relationships. Although self-dislcosure can lead to more intimate relationships, it can also leave one or more persons vulnerable.

7.0

Bibliography
1. Brashers. (2010, September 7). Interpersonal Communication and Relations. Retrieved December 8th , 2011, from University of Twente: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal%20Communi cation%20and%20Relations/Uncertainty_Reduction_Theory.doc/ 2. Devito, J. A. (2005). Messages Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. United States Of America: Pearson Education,Inc. 3. Moss, D. S. (2009, January 07). Psychlopedia -- Key theories -- Social theories. Retrieved December 8th , 2011, from Psycholopedia.com: http://www.psychit.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=252 4. S.W, L. J. (1999). Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 5. Solomon, D. H. (2008). Uncertainty reduction theory. Retrieved December 8th, 2011, from International Encylopedia of Communication. 6. Unknown. (2011, October 12). Communication Theory. Retrieved December 8th, 2011, from Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Uncertainty_Reduction 7. West, R. (2010). Introducing Communication Theory. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.