Question #1

The symbolic interaction theory concerns itself with how individuals interact, perceive and
utilize symbolic meanings within social interactions. For example, two individuals
communicating will frequently emphasize certain words, will reference objects using different
mannerisms and will describe common events in a particular way. These interactions are the
foundation of the symbolic interaction theory and these associations have been heavily
scrutinized by George Herbert Mead during the mid-1920s.
The symbolic interaction theory suggests that meaning, language, and thought work tightly
together to help us understand the concept of self. As such, individuals develop different
interaction mechanisms as a response to their environments. There are key influences on the
development of how one perceives their environment and their actions are a direct reflection of
those perceptions. With that being said, Mead makes a distinction between 'I' and the 'me' when
in use during a social situation.
The concept of ‘I’ is more based upon an individual’s attitude towards their community. For
example, individuals who follow the nomenclature of ‘I’ are more willing to act creatively and
follow distinctions that are most parallel to how the community thinks. During a social
interaction, one may use ‘I’ to elucidate on their thoughts, in addition to their communities,
disdain towards cigarettes. Conversely, ‘me’ concerns itself with the broad scope of interactions
with others and the environment. As such, one could state that ‘me’ is one’s true reflection of
their own internalized notion of self and the attitudes that their self projects. The ‘me’ is the most
representative of an individual’s understanding of who they are based upon how other
individuals respond to them in the environment.
Question #2
The uses and gratification theory was proposed as an attempt to better understand advancements
in technology and mass communication. Within this theory, socio-psychologist attempt to
elucidate on why and how individuals seek out certain forms of media to satisfy their particular
needs. It is unusual to think that this theory was developed in the 1960s, prior to the
technological revolution; however, its application is even more relevant in modern society.
The uses and gratification theory states that an individual’s needs are predefined within five
categories. An individual will be satisfied if cognitive, affective, personal integrative, social
integrative and tension free media are presented. For instance, providing satisfaction for one’s
cognitive needs suggests that people utilize media to increase their knowledge foundation, which
a large portion of the population finds advantageous. Individuals utilizing media, such as the
Internet, television, etc., may find this news resource more appropriate than traditional forms of
media. As such, it is evident that the uses and gratification theory would only become more
relevant in contemporary society.
With that being said, all of the concepts pertaining to the uses and gratification theory are
relevant within modern society. This theory was proposed when television was beginning to
explode in popularity within the United States. Television provided the public with a means to
increase their knowledge, to escape the autonomy of daily life, in addition to providing families
with a tool for relaxation and bonding. The use of media in contemporary society, although its
use has become more prevalent, still conveys the same notions of gratification that were present
during the 1960s. Therefore, one could conclude that all of the concepts and principles of the
uses and gratification theory are still relevant and are still detectable today.
Question #3
The most proficient means that one can increase their understanding of the external environment
is through the application of the scientific method. The scientific method requires one to identify
an unknown phenomenon, identify a question that will increase society’s understanding of that
phenomenon, develop an experiment with variables that can be measured, followed by collection
and analysis of the data to determine whether or not the experiment was a success. With that
being said, the success of an experiment largely depends upon the variables that will be
measured, in conjunction to how the data will be collected. The two most common types of data
collection are quantitative and qualitative.
The qualitative approach attempts to elucidate on the unknown by obtaining a broad overview of
the variables being studied. For example, qualitative studies usually take the form of interviews,
focus groups or open ended questions that provide one with the opportunity to give a range of
answers. Furthermore, the qualitative approach to a research study can vary depending upon how
structured the proposed variables and analyzed data will be. It is possible that the researchers in a
qualitative study will allow the participant to provide a range of answers that are not previously
defined. Although this will provide one with the opportunity to describe their exact feelings on
an issue; increases the complexity of the data analysis.
The quantitative approach is more reliant on using variables that can be precisely measured
throughout experiment. For instance, a quantitative study may require a researcher to measure
the change in temperature (dependent variable) that is result of some physiological change
(independent variable) within the body. These variables will be measured with scientific
equipment that can then be statistically analyzed to determine whether or not the obtained results
satisfy the original hypotheses. In comparison to the qualitative approach, this allows one to
generalize a broader population based upon a small research cohort.
Question #4
The spiral of silence theory is commonly referred to situations where individuals remain silent
when they believe that their ideas are in opposition to the majority of the individuals. For
example, the spiral of silence theory can be seen when analyzing how individuals function in
large groups. If the majority of all team members suggest that option ‘A’ is the most conducive
to the organizations continued viability; there is a decreased probability that one member will
speak up in favor of option ‘B.’ As the number of individuals who identify in favor of option ‘B’
increases, the probability of one speaking up in favor of option ‘B’ against option ‘A’
significantly improves.
The groupthink theory suggests that a group will make a faulty decision based upon the large
fraction of all individuals believing that it is the most advantageous to the group. For example,
the group may decide to execute option ‘A’, even though empirical evidence suggests that option
‘A’ is more detrimental than option ‘B’. Regardless, the individuals of the group will decide that
it is the most beneficial, given that the pressures of the group lead to the deterioration of one’s
mental efficiency.
Although the spiral of silence and the groupthink theory do possess similarities; they are entirely
different. For example, the spiral of silence theory is more individually based and its prevalence
within a group will vary depending upon the situation. For example, if an individual has a natural
proclivity to be silent during group meetings, then it goes without saying that this individual will
be more likely to satisfy the spiral of silence theory. Conversely, the groupthink theory is based
upon the premise that individuals are pressured into executing a faulty decision. These pressures
may be the result of a more higher-level employee suggesting that the faulty decision is the most
beneficial and thus, all lower-level employees agree with that particular choice. The individuals
may believe that the choice is not the most appropriate; yet, they will choose not to speak up as a
result of social pressures. With that in mind, it is evident that the groupthink theory has a greater
amount of control over the spiral of silence theory. As such, it is absolutely essential that an
organization ensure that no individual falls victim to the groupthink theory as this is very
detrimental to an organizations success.
Question #5
Organizational culture may be defined as the various behaviors and values that contribute to the
unique social and psychological atmosphere with an organization. When comparing businesses,
one will find that the environment of each business is significantly different. The environment of
a financial firm on Wall Street will be highly different than a technological firm in Silicon
Valley. This is the result of each institution requiring a specific set of behaviors that is most
conducive to the organizations continued success.
In comparison, dramatism attempts to elucidate on specific human behaviors and actions by
comparing life to that of a drama. In this manner, one can infer what the most direct route to
one’s self interest and/or motives are behind a particular action. Furthermore, the act of
dramatism requires one to view their performance within an organization as a fictionalized event,
thereby allowing them to scrutinize hypothetical scenarios to ensure that the most appropriate is
identified. This allows one to emphasize the manner in which the social order is expressed, given
that it is expressed through social interaction.
The two above theories have differing views in regards to communication as performance. First,
organizational culture views performance as anything that increases the viability of the
organization. Of course, the organization would like to adopt behaviors that are most conducive
to the organization success while still maintaining high employee morale. Conversely, dramatism
views communication as performance by identifying the most appropriate means of
communication by analyzing a fictional scenario. This allows for the determination of the most
appropriate scenario and thus, the most proficient means of communication chosen.
The differences of dramatism and organizational culture do not suggest different applications. In
fact, they are each applied in the same way and the only difference is how they are initially
implemented. For example, the application of the most appropriate organizational culture
requires one to dramatize hypothetical events to guarantee that the most proficient cultures are
identified. Thus, this suggests that dramatism is continuously apply to organizational life to
ensure that the organizational culture theory is being effectively used.
Question #6
My training in communication theory can significantly improve my professional life as a law
enforcement officer. First, law enforcement officers are required to quickly ascertain a situation
to determine whether or not there are any potential threats. Through the application of
communication theory, a law enforcement officer can identify nonverbal social cues that the
suspect may not be aware they are demonstrating. Second, my training in communication theory
has significantly increased my ability to determine when someone is being facetious.
Unfortunately, individuals who come into contact with law enforcement officers are typically
trying to evade the possibility of arrest and thus, their only means of evading arrest is to lie about
their actions.
Third, my training in communication theory has improved my ability to read a police report and
hypothesize the events that led to the suspect perpetrating the action. For example, every
enforcement officer is required to submit a detailed summary of the events following an arrest.
Sometimes, other officers must refer to this information if they are involved in some way. As
such, my training in communication theory has increased my ability to read between the lines
and obtain a better comprehension of the events that unfolded during the incident.
Fourth, my training in communication theory has improved my productivity and efficiency at
work. I am now more proficient at identifying when a particular individual desires to be left
alone and when is the most appropriate time to approach a coworker. Furthermore,
communication theory has increased my communication skills with my supervisors, as I am now
more effective at concisely delivering pertinent information to them. Lastly, my training in
communication theory as improved my ability to deliver evidence during criminal proceedings.
Law enforcement officers are typically required to present the evidence of an arrest during a
proceeding. During these proceedings, the defense has the opportunity to scrutinize the actions of
the officer in order to reduce the penalty of the offender’s crime. My training in communication
theory has increased my ability to remain resolute during a trial and deliver the information that
is pertinent while negating unnecessary details.