Galvin
Monday, October 27, 2003
West and Turner – Chapter 8
Expectancy Violations Theory
EVT suggests that people hold expectations about the nonverbal behavior of others; unexpected changes in conversational distance between communicators are arousing and often ambiguous. Interpreting the meaning behind an expectancy violation depends on how favorably the “violator” is perceived.
This theory is based on the research of Judee Burgoon.
The study of a person’s use of space is called Proxemics. Burgoon (1978) starts from the premise that humans have two competing needs: affiliation and personal space. Personal Space is, “an invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual which defines the individual’s preferred distance from others.”
Edward Hall (1966) claims that four proxemic zones exist – intimate, personal, social, public – and each zone is used for different reasons.
Intimate Distance – 0 –18 inches – includes behaviors that range from touch to being able to observe a person’s facial characterisitics.
Personal Distance – 18 inches to 4 feet – encompasses holding hands to keeping someone at an arm’s length; likely reserved for family and friends.
Social Distance – 4 – 12 feet – reserved for formal relationships such as those with co-workers, or at a cocktail party.
Public Distance – 12 feet and beyond – reserved for very formal discussions, such as a professor and students in class.
Territoriality
Territoriality is a person’s ownership of an area or object.
Three types of territories exist:
1) Primary territories – signal a person’s exclusive domain over an area or object
2) Secondary territories – signal a person’s affiliation with an area or object
3) Public territories – signal open spaces for everyone, includes beaches, parks
Territoriality is frequently accompanies by prevention and reaction, (Knapp & Hall, 2002) i.e., people may try to prevent invasion of territory, or respond once the territory is violated.
Assumptions of Expectancy Violation Theory
- Human interaction is driven by expectations
- Expectations for human behavior are learned
- Evaluations of deviation are mediated by the reward value of the communicator
Expectations – thoughts and behaviors anticipated in conversations
Influences on Expectancies
- Individual Communicator Factors – gender, personality, age appearance, reputation
- Relational Factors – prior relational history, status differences, levels of liking
- Context Factors – formality/informality, social/task functions, environment restrictions, cultural norms
According to Burgoon and Jerold Hale, (1988) two types of expectations exist:
1) Pre-interactional Expectations – the knowledge or skills a communicator brings to an interaction
2) Interactional Expectations – An idividual’s ability to carry out the interaction – appropriate distance, eye contact and other behaviors are expected.
Arousal – Increased attention when deviations from expectations occur.
Cognitive Arousal – mental awareness of the deviations
Physical Arousal – bodily changes that result from deviations
Threat Threshold – Burgoon (1978) defines as the “distance at which an interactant experiences physical and physiological discomfort by the presence of another.”
Violation Valence – Perceived positive or negative value of a deviation from expectations.
West and Turner – Chapter 16
Organizational Culture Theory
In this sense of the word, Culture doesn’t refer race, ethnicity, or backgrounds of individuals. Organizational Culture includes all of the symbols (actions, routines, conversations), and the meanings that people attach to theses symbols. “The essence of organizational life.” Cultural meaning and understanding are achieved through the interactions employees and management have with one another.
This theory is based on the research of Clifford Geertz, Michael Pacanowsky, and Nick O’Donnell-Trujillo.
Assumptions of the Cultural Approach
- Organizational members create and maintain a shared sense of organizational reality, resulting in a better understanding of the values (standard and principles) of an organization.
- The use and interpretation of symbols are critical to an organization’s culture.
- Cultures vary across organizations, and the interpretations of actions within these cultures are diverse.
Symbols of an Organizational Culture
1) Physical Manifestations- art, design, logo, buildings, décor, dress, appearance, material objects, physical layout.
2) Behavioral Manifestations – Ceremonies, rituals, communication patterns, traditions, customs, rewards, punishments
3) Verbal Manifestations – Anecdotes, jokes, jargon, names, nicknames, explanations, stories, myths, history, heroes/villains, metaphors
Ethnographic Understanding
Dwight Conquergood (1992; 1994) studied gang communication; his research offered a view of gang communication ignored by the media. His efforts in revealing gang-related stories to others are part of ethnography, the underlying methodology in Organizational Culture Theory.
Geertz (1973) argues that in order to understand a culture, one must se it from the members’ point of view. In his travels, he used a field journal, or personal log to record feelings about communication with people from cultures other than one’s own. He determined that ethnography is a kind of thick description, or an explanation of the layers of meaning in a culture.
Geertz suggests that a balance must be struck between naturally observing and recording behavior and integrating a researcher’s values into the process. “The trick is to figure out what the devil they think they are up to.”
The Communicative Performance
Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo contend that organizational members act out certain communication performances, which result in a unique organizational culture. Performance is a metaphor suggesting that organizational life is like a theatrical presentation.
Cultural Performances in the Workplace
Ritual Performances Regular and recurring presentations in the workplace
- Personal Rituals – Routines done at the workplace each day – checking voice and email
- Task Rituals – Routines associated with a particular job – issuing tickets, collecting fees
- Social Rituals – Routines that involve relationships with others in the workplace – happy hours
- Organizational Rituals – department meetings, company picnics
Passion Performances – Storytelling, metaphors, exaggerated speech, e.g. “this is the most unappreciative company.”
Social Performances – Acts of civility and politeness, expressions of etiquette, e.g. water cooler chat, customer thank-yous, supporting each others’ “face”.
Political Performances – Exercising control, power, influence – “barking” bosses, intimidation rituals, use of informants, bargaining
Enculturation Performances – Acquired competencies over organizational career, how members attain the knowledge and skills to be contributing members of the organiztion – learning/teaching roles, orientations, interviews.
West and Turner Chapter 20 – The Narrative Paradigm
This theory is based on the research of Walter Fisher.
The Narrative Paradigm promotes the belief that humans are storytellers and that values, emotions, and aesthetic considerations ground our beliefs and behaviors.
Robert Rowland (1989) notes that the idea that people are essentially storytellers has been adopted by many different disciplines including history, biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and theology.
The word paradigm indicates that Fisher’s thinking represents a major shift from thinking that had supported most previous communication theories (a paradigm shift); Fisher believes that he is capturing the fundamental nature of human beings with the insight that we are storytellers experiencing life in narrative form.
Fisher defends the rational world paradigm. After the scientific revolution, philosophy was dethroned as the source of logic, and logic was placed within science and technology over devalued poetics and rhetoric. While struggles among the different branches of knowledge continues today, Fisher asserts that, “acceptance of the narrative paradigm shifts the controversy from a focus on who owns logos to a focus on whatspecific instances of discourse, regardless of form, provide the most trustworthy, reliable, and desirables guides to belief and behavior, and under what conditions.” (1987)
Assumptions of the Narrative Paradigm
N.P
1) Humans are Storytellers.
2) Decision Making and Communication are based on “good reasons”.(narrative logic)
3) Good reasons are determined by matters of history, biography, culture, and character.
4) Rationality is based in people’s awareness of how internally consistent and truthful to lived experiences stories appear.
5) The world is experienced by people as a set of stories from which to chose among. As we choose, we live life in a process of continual re-creation.
Rational World Paradigm
1) Humans are rational beings.
2) Decision making is based on Arguments.
3) Arguments adhere to specific criteria for soundness and logic.
4) Rationality is based in the quality of knowledge and formal reasoning processes.
5) The world can be reduced to a series of logical relationships that are uncovered through reasoning.
Key Concepts of the Narrative Approach
Narration – Any verbal or nonverbal account to which listeners assign meaning.
Narrative Rationality – A standard for judging which stories to believe, and which to disregard.
Coherence – a principle of narrative rationality judging the internal consistency of a story.
- Structural Coherence – refers to the flow of the story
- Material Coherence – refers to the congruence between one story and other related stories
- Characterological Coherence – refers to the believability of the characters in a story
Fidelity – A principle of narrative rationality judging the credibility of a story; whether the story “rings true” for the listener.
The Logic of Good Reasons – A set of values for accepting a story as true and worthy of acceptance; provides a method for assessing fidelity.
This logic is a process consisting of two series of five questions that the listener asks about the narrative. The first five are:
1) Are the statements that claim to be factual in the narrative really factual?
2) Have any relevant facts been omitted from the narrative or distorted in its telling?
3) What are the patterns of reasoning that exist in the narrative?
4) How relevant are the arguments in the story to any decision the listener may make?
5) How well does the narrative address the important significant issues of this case?
These questions constitute the logic of reasons; to transform this into logic of good reasons, the following five questions are asked:
1) What are the implicit and explicit values contained in the narrative?
2) Are the values appropriate to the decision that is relevant to the narrative?
3) What would be the effects of adhering to the values embedded in the narrative?
4) Are the values confirmed or validated in lived experience?
5) Are the values of the narrative the basis for ideal human conduct?
Galvin – 10/24
Handouts – Kilman and Thomas Conflict Booklet, and Goffman, Presenting Self in Everyday Life, Chapter II, “Teams”.
Conflict handling modes: Competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating, compromising
Competing Collaborating
Compromising
Avoiding Accommodating
(y)Assertiveness/(x)cooperativeness axes
The most effective communicators can use all of the modes.
1) Competing – assertive and uncooperative – there is a winner and loser.
2) Accommodating – unassertive and cooperative
3) Avoiding – Unassertive and uncooperative
4) Collaborating – assertive and cooperative – most significant and difficult skill, creates a Win/Win. It is incredibly time consuming. Integrative bargaining, makes the pie bigger.
5) Compromising – intermediate assertive and cooperative
Kilman and Thomas say that the most effective communicator can implement each conflict management style.
What collaboration did we observe last week? Discussion.
Integrative Bargaining – Collaborating
Methods:
1) “Expanding the Pie”- increase available sources.
2) Non-specific Compensation – 1 gets, other paid in unrelated comp.
3) Logrolling – Prioritizing needs and trade-off, trade something of little value that is important to the other in exchange for something of value that is of little value to them.
4) Cost cutting – X gets what X wants, other’s costs are reduced, e.g. free item for which receiver pays for delivery, Kathleen’s spare furniture given to undergrads who’ll pick it up.
5) Bridging – New option – Biscotti Story – Finding a new solution by thinking creatively.
Integrative Bargaining is the most difficult and costly conflict management skill; it’s costly because one might not get exactly what you want. Requires talk and trust, effort, requires disclosure of what is valuable to each party. May not be worth doing with little at stake. High Cooperation, High Assertion
Accommodating – High cooperation, low assertion – under what circumstances would this approach be effective? When there is an exchange to be made, or on things that are less important to you than the other person. Often it’s an implicit assumption that a person who accommodates will get something he/she really wants in exchange for his/her accommodation. (Social Exchange)
Avoiding – Low cooperation, Low assertion – “Fighting with a Marshmallow” -Physically avoiding a person or situation, sending an intermediary. Brush offs, “The check is in the mail…”
When an avoider deals with someone who is more up-front, the pitch of the fight can rise…difficult in marital situations.
When would a person choose to avoid? When outcomes would seem to be negatively affected by the conflict…if I can’t handle a competer, I’d avoid him, et al.
Email enables avoiders!
Handout – Coordinated Management of Meaning
Coordinated Management of Meaning
In a relationship, we start with “Data”…how do we know what is meant by the data?
CMM gives us 5 lenses for interpreting data.
1) Content – the data itself; what is said or done?
2) Speech Act - What is the intent of the speech? What is the sender trying to do? Is it a joke, reprimand, other? “When am I going to get the Feldman report?”
3) Episode – situation in which the interaction occurs
4) Relationship Contract – Who are we to one another?
5) Life Script/Autobiography – Who am I? (As the speaker) How do I hope to be perceived?
Cultural Pattern – Ethnicity, gender, culture
- Constitutive Rules – What counts for what? (What counts for affection, rudeness, respect? E.g. teasing counts as affection, “thank yous” count for politeness)
- Regulative Rules – govern interaction. (Is it appropriate for children to challenge parents? Should friends give advice? Should I challenge Dad’s opinion on religion/politics?)
Create scenario based on “Get me a beer while you’re up.” Discussion.
Dramatism – Goffman
“Life is Theater” – for most of our lives, we are players on a stage, playing roles in “performance mode”
Terms – Frame Analysis – Examination of way experience is organized for individual –strip – arbitrary sequence of activity – frame organizational pattern used to define situation
Face and Face engagement – face – concept of self each person displays in particular interactions with others – face engagement – when people engage in focused interaction
Facework – communication designed to counteract face threats, may be preventive or corrective
1) Performance -
Impression management
Sincere Cynical
“taken in by act” “put on”
A) Front – The part of the individual’s performance that regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance.
B) Parts of Front:
1) Setting – place, layout, furniture
2) Personal Front – appearance, manner, rank, gender
3) Idealization – tendency for performers to offer their observers an impression that is idealized
Concealment of…
- Any profitable economy – incidental goodies
- Errors and mistakes
- Presentation of completed end product, if it contradicts the idealized image
- Avoid showing “dirty work”
- Attempt to uphold standard (mystique)
4) Maintenance of Expressive Control
- Performer “improves” the script
- Performer tries to appear comfortable
- Performer overcomes poor planning
2) Regions – Goffman may be best known for this concept.
- Frontspace – a.k.a. Frontstage - place where performance is given.
- Backspace – a.k.a. Backstage - place where performance is knowingly contradicted.
There are midlevels to this…some performance level is maintained with different groups at work. Goffman uses dining area/kitchen – in dining room, waiters and waitresses act differently than when they are in the kitchen. Wait staff are “themselves” in the kitchen, but are “actors” in the dining room. In case there is an audience, some actors maintain their role…they don’t fall out of character.
Some organizations are flat, informal, and therefore lack backspace/frontspace distinction.
3) Teamwork
- Team – set of people who cooperate in staging a single routine. Therefore, members experience reciprocal dependence.
- Teamwork depends on 1) Good conduct of each player and 2) familiarity among team members. It requires loyalty among members.
Team Communication – (depends on loyalty among members)
- Discouraging individual public stands
- Avoiding open disagreement
- Giving impression of individually reaching joint decision
- Filling in for each other/covering for mistakes
- Excluding unpredictable members
- Maintaining clear audience/team lines
- Agreeing to follow director
Kathleen attended the 2003 Senior Class Etiquette Banquet – she learned more about bread than she thought it was possible to know. It prepared students to be players on a stage.
Gangs and people in their neighborhood would know about them based on how gang members perform.
Managers who were firing many employees may use a good cop/bad cop script.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Galvin 10/18
Waller’s Principle of Least Interest – the less invested person in the relationship has the power. The relationship will only go as far as the least invested person is willing to go.
NB
- Relationships move through stages, not individuals
- Consider as a continuum, not steps
- Depenetration is the reverse*
- Movement up and down occurs over time
- Strong connection to social exchange – the greater the mutual rewards, the closer the relationship
- Ties to dialectical perspective – other tension that operate in a relationship, that even within a stage, the relationship is dynamic, big and little tensions are negotiated.
*Problem with Depenetration – according to the Dance model, you can’t go backwards through the helix, a relationship’s history can’t be erased or forgotten.
Systems Theory
Other theories make the assumption that we are fully cognizant of our patterns. Systems theory assumes that we can be unconscious of forces that direct our behavior.
“Decontexted Individuals do not exist”
To understand anyone, you must see them in their context.
Mom -------- Max 16, just kicked out of 3rd H.S.------------Dad ------------------Angela 10, well behaved -----------------------------------Therapist
Mom – We’re at our wits end
(all of Mom’s nonverbals are directed to husband)
Therapist asks Mom about Mom/Dad relationship
Max wants to leave the room
Therapist asks Dad about Mom/Dad
Max interrupts, asks to take a cigarette break
8 iterations of this…Max interrupts when Mom/Dad relationship comes up.
What is going on?
Max has learned that when his parents fight, he gets scared, and if he does something negative, they focus their attention on him. Max’s anxiety is reduced when they fight with him rather than each other.
No one in the family is aware that this is going on. This situation is functional in Max’s eyes, his parents stay together.
At school, Max’s behavior is dysfunctional…
At some point, Max leaves the system…he controls his response, or leaves to go to the military. Parents encounter each other, and they will either split up or work out their issues. Angela may take up Max’s behavior. (Galvin gives her a 60-70% chance that she’ll take up Max’s behavior) She could intensify her good behavior. Galvin suggests that behavior, rather than explicit words, would be effective in a system, so no one would use words alone.
If neither Angela nor Max serve the purpose, an affair might take place, or one parent might become a workaholic, drugs and alcohol, et al. (All are less likely)
What if…
Max visits the therapist alone. Max talks about problems at home, the therapist gives him advice about staying out of the middle of parents’ fights and out of trouble at school. The system will draw him back, they will view him as they always have, they will find something in Max’s behavior about which to complain, so that he continues to play his role.
A metaphor for the system is a mobile. Touch one part, all parts move, e.g. a situation in which siblings who fought growing up, then become close after college, affects the rest of the family.
Interdependence – a change in one part the system affects the rest of the system. The more powerful the part that changes, the stronger the effects on the rest of the system.
Wholeness (synergy) – the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. “Hot Groups”
Patterns/Rules – (balcony) – Powerful patterns are built in systems; patterns become Rules.
Calibration/feedback – Human systems can be compared to heating systems. A thermostat will govern the temperature inside the house. If one goes along with a system and doesn’t challenge authority, when someone goes outside of the calibrated pattern and gets a direct, nasty response, Maintenance Feedback puts the challenger back inside acceptable lines. If the challenge is successful, the system may be broadened, the rules may change. Positive Feedback, the challenging behavior becomes acceptable, and part of the new, recalibrated rules.
Mutual causality/Punctuation - Never anyone to blame, or anyone to accuse of “starting it”. Everything is both a reaction and a cause…an ongoing chain of causality. We tend to punctuate certain events for our own purposes.
Manager ignores Salesperson irresponsible
Salesperson responsible Manager attentive
Where does the circle begin or end?
Is the salesperson only responsible when the manager watches? Is the manager only attentive when the salesperson acts irresponsibly? We can go either direction around the circle, but according to system theory, the circle has no beginning and end, and it doesn’t matter, the pattern is intact. The most functional, desirable point on the circle is when the manager is attentive and the salesperson responsible. How does one maximize the positives, or time spent in this arc of the circle?
Sonia asked how useful this knowledge is, when it isn’t often practiced? Kathleen suggested that this theory is something to take, “to the balcony,” and that it’s most useful when circumstances are difficult, painful.
Goal Orientation/Equifinality - What does it mean to be, “supportive team or company”? Does it mean compensation, flex time, other? Equifinality means that there are many ways to get to the goal.
Organizational Complexity – Systems are complex, genograms are used to analyze. Some groups are more powerful than others, some are informal.
Openness/Boundaries – Some boundaries are strong and prohibitive (e.g. a cult, the Amish). Some are healthy and allow exchange between the system and the outside world; this kind of group filters new information by filtering it through “who we are.” Some boundaries lack filter systems, which can compromise the values of the system, i.e. the boundaries are weak, e.g. dotcom startups that evolve quickly and don’t develop an identity.
Handout – Holding a Systems Perspective
- Persons do not live in a vacuum
- In established relationships, cause and effects become interchangeable over time.
- Any human behavior is the result of many variables rather than one cause
- System members operate according to many unrecognized patterns and rules that may be more apparent to outsiders
- There are many ways to be a functional relational unit; there is no one right way.
- The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Conflict – A Sense of Interdependence
“The Five Conflict Handling Modes” (Thomas-Kilmann) (Handout)
- Prior Conditions – what conditions typically set up the conflict? E.g. stock price is down, visit from the president, child’s bad report card.
- Frustration Awareness* – the tension begins to show as behavior, but not named as a problem. Silence, person makes himself or herself unavailable by closing door, look harried, panicked. People can identify my behaviors, regardless whether I can.
- Active Conflict -
- Solution/Nonsolution – sometimes the issue remains unsolved
- Follow-up – “post blow-up” behaviors – regret, apologies, compensatory “niceness” – GOES BACK TO PRIOR CONDITIONS…sets up Next Time.
- Resolution – When we have somehow eliminated the pattern of conflict. Police/Spouse relationships are often cyclical conflicts, full of tension because of the danger involved in the work, and results in divorce, or transfer by the policeman/woman to safer work.
*The conflict cycle can be defeated if people identify the Frustration Awareness stage. When I see a person beginning to behave in a frustrated way, I can talk about the causes, and the cycle can be stopped, and fewer cycles will occur in the future.
Thomas-Kilmann created a grid based on the 5 styles of conflict
Two dimensions of conflict
1) assertiveness
2) cooperation
Conflict handling modes: Competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating, compromising
Competing Collaborating
Compromising
Avoiding Accommodating
(y)Assertiveness/(x)cooperativeness axes
The most effective communicators can use all of the modes.
1) Competing – assertive and uncooperative – there is a winner and loser.
2) Accommodating – unassertive and cooperative
3) Avoiding – Unassertive and uncooperative
4) Collaborating – assertive and cooperative – most significant and difficult skill, creates a Win/Win. It is incredibly time consuming. Integrative bargaining, makes the pie bigger.
5) Compromising – intermediate assertive and cooperative
“The biscotti story”
On an Italian dock, a ship unloaded 40 crates of oranges. 2 people were expecting the same 40 crates. The purser tries to divvy them evenly, but neither can use 20 crates. One person asks the other, “why do you need 40 crates?” The first is a juicer, needs the fruit for juice. The second asks the first the same, he is a biscotti maker, needs the peels for the biscotti. SO…the juicer sends his peels to the biscotti maker, and the problem is solved. This is the kind of third alternative that a collaborative thinker would use.
This week, look for people who are capable of this kind of problem solving.
Chapter 18 – The Rhetoric
This theory is based on the writings of Aristotle.
Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric: the available means of persuasion.
Assumptions of Rhetoric:
1) Effective public speakers must consider their audience – Aristotle “Of the three elements in speech making – speaker, subject, and person addressed – it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object” – Audience Analysis is the process of evaluating an audience and its background, and tailoring one’s speech so that listeners respond as the speaker hopes they will.
2) Effective public speakers utilize a number of proofs in their presentations – Ethos – perceived character, intelligence, and goodwill of the speaker. Logos – Logical proof; the use of arguments and evidence in a speech. Pathos – Emotional proof; emotions drawn from audience members.
Syllogisms and Enthymemes: A Three-Tiered Argument
Syllogism – A set of propositions that are related to one another and draw a conclusion from the major and minor premises.
Ex.
Major Premise: All geeks love Star Trek.
Minor Premise: All nerds are geeks
Conclusion: Therefore, all nerds love Star Trek.
Lloyd Bitzer defined enthymeme as “A syllogism based on probabilities, signs, and examples, and whose function is rhetorical persuasion”.
Three elements of enthymeme:
1) Probabilities – statements that are generally true but still require conjecture
2) Signs – statements that identify reasons for a fact
3) Examples – statements that are either factual or invented by the speaker
Difference between Syllogism and Ethymeme:
Aristotle regarded ethymemes as a method of persuasion “which has the same relationship to rhetoric that the syllogism has to logic”
Ex.
Syllogism:
Major Premise – Some politicians are crooks
Minor Premise – Joe is a politician
Conclusion – Therefore, Joe is a crooked politician
Ethymeme:
Premise – Some politicians are crooks
Conclusion – Joe may be a crooked politician
Larry Arnhart (1981) reminds us that the enthymeme is the foundation of all persuasive discourse, and is therefore linked not just to logos, but ethos and pathos as well.
Canons of Rhetoric
1) Invention – pertains to the construction or development of an argument related to a particular speech – aids to invention are called topics, or the arguments a speaker uses. Speakers look for civic spaces, or metaphoric locations where an opportunity to persuade others exists.
2) Arrangement – pertains to a speaker’s ability to organize a speech. Speeches should follow a three-fold approach:
- Introduction – includes gaining the audience’s attention, connecting with the audience and providing and overview of the speaker’s purpose.
- Body – includes arguments, examples and important details to make a point
- Conclusion – aimed at summarizing a speaker’s main points and arousing emotions in an audience
3) Style – the use of language to express ideas in a certain way. Aristotle discouraged the use of glosses, or outdated words, and encouraged the use of metaphor to bridge the gap between the unfamiliar and too familiar.
4) Delivery – pertains to the nonverbal presentation of a speaker’s ideas. For Aristotle, it meant manipulation of the voice, but it can include eye contact, vocal cues, dialect, physical appearance and body movement.
5) Memory – pertains to a speaker’s effort in storing information for a speech.
Types of Rhetoric
Forensic Rhetoric – pertains to a speakers prompting feelings of guilt or innocence from an audience, i.e. speech in courtrooms.
Epideictic Rhetoric – pertains to praising or blaming, is greatly informed by the study of virtues or values. (Borrowed from Plato) Funeral practices in U.S. exemplify this kind of rhetoric, when lives of deceased are lauded.
Deliberative Rhetoric – a.k.a. political rhetoric - determines an audience’s course of action. Aristotle believed that people deliberate on 5 subjects – revenue, war and peace, the defense of the country, commerce, and legislation, though the list would be broader today. Larry Arnhart (1981) comments that the deliberative rhetorician needs to know not only the actual subject of deliberation but also the elements of human nature that influence deliberation. Aristotle focused on what a deliberative speaker can say to an assembly, and this deliberative oratory continues today.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Galvin – 10/10
What did we observe about Face Theory last week?
Discussion.
Face/Facework (Face to Face Management handout)
The strategies we use to save our own or others’ face.
Why?
We expect rewards, reciprocity, gratitude from others; we hope to maintain our face.
Face Threats
Compliments as well as challenges could be interpreted as face threats.
Face Needs
Positive – need for acceptance
Negative – need for autonomy
Preventive Facework
Admitting to mistakes before they are recognized by others, et al
Corrective Facework
Own up to mistakes, joking, offering amends, or “make-goods”, et al
“Politeness” – Positive and Negative
Positive – Show concern, compliment
Negative – Showing concern for the other person’s negative face needs
FTAs – Face Threatening Acts
5 types:
1) We make choices about what to do when we face-threaten, then we never do it – cathartic release.
2) Go off the record
3) Positive Politeness – using positive politeness – “I know you have been working very hard lately, but…”
4) Negative Politeness – acknowledging intrusion into the other’s privacy “I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job, but…”
5) Go Bald, or on the record – just saying it.
The FTA formula WFTAx=D(S,H)+P(H,S)+Rx
WFTAx=Weightiness of FTA
x=culture
D=Social Distance
P=Power
Rx=Absolute value of the imposition in the culture (X)
Social Exchange Theory
(handout)
This theory will tie into our worldviews; we’ll either love or hate it.
Everything we do is in our own self-interest. We act based on rewards and costs, we want to maximize rewards, minimize costs.
Relational partners not only assess the rewards and costs of the relationship at a given moment but also use the information to predict future rewards and costs.
Discussion: What would it take for someone to become a close friend?
- not a lot of time required
- close proximity, guaranteed contact, e.g. fellow student, tennis player at same club
- mutual encouragement
Resources: Concrete/Abstract
Concrete – help with kids, money
Abstract – status, positive recognition, elevated self-esteem
Consequences of Exchanges
Exogenous – Outside Rewards – could get from anyone, not tied in some unique way to the giver, e.g., Cubs tickets, I’ll take them from anyone! Not central or organic to a relationship.
Endogenous – Inside Rewards – Unique to your relationship with a person
Types of Exchanges
Restricted – Commonly traded between two people – I have extra and give to you, you give to me when you have extra, a closed-circle.
Generalized – “What goes around comes around”, or pay it forward – if I have resources, I share with a group, but don’t expect direct repayment, but in-kind payment from the group e.g. community helping each other move, church community helping victims of house fires.
Economics
Profit = Rewards – Costs (Blau)
What am I getting out of the relationship? The answer is in the equation. If one feels like they are getting more than they put in, then Worth, or Profit, will cause the person to want the relationship to continue.
Homans - “The open secret of human exchange is to give the other man behavior that is more valuable to him than costly to you, and vice versa…”
Homans – Distributive Justice – implies the perceived allocation of rewards and costs is equitable and fair - if I give a lot, I expect a lot, and if I give a little, I expect a little…
Minimax Principle – People want to maximize rewards, minimize costs, Win/Win
Predictive Process
CL/Clat
Comparison Level – subjective standard, threshold above which the outcome seems attractive
Comparison Level for Alternative – (Clat) – measures the worth of a particular relationship relative to the alternatives.
Interface
The two comparison levels produce four possible types of relationships:
1) Satisfying and Stable – The payoff in the current relationship is higher than the general CL and CLat
2) Satisfying and Unstable – The payoff in the relationship is higher than the CL and lower than the CLat
3) Unsatisfying and Stable – The payoff is lower than the CL but higher than the CLat
4) Unsatisfying and Unstable – The payoff is lower than the CL and CLat.
Handout
0>CL>CLat = Satisfying and Stable – I have unsatisfying friends now, and this new person exceeds my standards…a Godsend!
0>CLat>CL= Satisfying and Stable – this person is better than current friends, though current friends exceed my standards. Happy Happy!
CL>0>CLat= Unsatisfying and Stable – “big dreams, decent option” This person beats current friends, but doesn’t measure up to standards, so this person is now most satisfying relationship I have, so I’ll stick with them.
CL>CLat>0= Unsatisfying and Unstable – “awful circumstance” I am unhappy with current friends, and this person is even worse.
CLat>CL>0= Unsatisfying and Unstable – this person doesn’t measure up to current friends or my standards…bye!
CLat>0>CL= Satisfying and Unstable – this relationship will be low priority, since current friends are better, though this one exceeds my standards, so I’ll probably invest a little in the relationship and not eliminate it right away.
Social Penetration Model
(Handout)
- Model that says that you go up one set of steps during development of the relationship, down another for decline.
- Very applicable to romantic relationships and friendships.
Stages
1) Orientation – stereotype responses, clichés, none of the characteristics of developed relationships
2) Exploratory Affection Exchange – casual acquaintances/friendly neighbors – inside jokes. Most relationships at this level
3) Affective Exchange – close friendship/courtship – most of the characteristics of developed relationships are displayed, “good friends.” For some, this is the highest level they will achieve.
4) Stable Exchange – few relationships at this level, interpret and predict each other’s feelings and behavior. “Reasonably constant attention, nurturing, and effort.” Probably can’t have more than 2 at a time.
Depenetration – “film in reverse without exact duplication of lines.”
- move from more intimate to less intimate areas
- Systematic and generally reverse growth of relationship
- conflict, much exchange and resolution, withdrawal if inresolved
- Conflicts on major values causes faster depenetration than those over superficial things
Characteristics of Developed Relationships
1) Richness – convey same message in a number of ways
2) Uniqueness of Interaction – idiosyncratic message system
3) Efficiency of Exchange – accuracy, speed, sensitivity
4) Substitutability – convey message in alternative fashion when necessary
5) Spontaneity – breaking and varying patterns
6) Synchronization/Pacing – coordinative “dance” metaphor
7) Openness – verbal and nonverbal accessibility
8) Evaluation – conveying positive and negative judgments without negative consequences
Revelation Process
“Onion” Perspective
- Closeness developed through self-disclosure
- Outer layer to inner core
Sandberg – “People are like onions; you discover them a layer at a time, and sometimes you weep.”
NB
- Relationships move through stages, not individuals
- Considered a continuum
- Depenetration is the reverse
- Movement up and down occurs over time
- Strong connection to Social Exchange
- Ties to dialectical perspective
Friday, October 03, 2003
West and Turner – Chapter 26
Face-Negotiation Theory
This theory is based on the research of Stella Ting-Toomey.
Face is the public image people display, a projected image of one’s self and the claim of self-respect in a relationship.
Erving Goffman (1967) is generally credited with situating face in contemporary Western research.
Face-Negotiation Theory is one of the few theories that explicitly acknowledges that people from different cultures perceive and manage conflict differently.
Ting-Toomey contends that face can be interpreted in 2 primary ways:
1) Face Concern – interest in maintaining one’s face, or another’s
2) Face Need – desire to be associated or disassociated with others
Face and Politeness Theory
Two universal needs exist:
1) Positive Face Needs – desire to be liked and admired by significant others
2) Negative Face Needs – desire to be autonomous and unconstrained
Facework
Facework is defined as the actions used to deal with face needs of self and others.
3 types:
1) Tact Facework – extent to which a person respects another’s autonomy – doesn’t impose on another’s freedom by allowing them to act as they choose.
2) Solidarity Facework – accepting another as part of an in-group
3) Approbation Facework – focusing more on the positive aspects of another than the negative, “minimizing blame, maximizing praise.”
Assumptions of Face-Negotiation Theory
- Self-identity is important in interpersonal interactions, with individuals negotiating their identities differently across cultures
- The management of conflict is mediated by face and culture
- Certain acts threaten one’s projected self-image (face). Two actions make up face threatening process: Face Saving – efforts to avoid embarrassment or vulnerability - Face Restoration – occurs after face-loss has happened, a strategy to preserve autonomy and avoid loss of face, e.g. excuses and justifications.
Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures
According to Ting-Toomey, culture is not a static variable.
Individualism – a cultural value that places emphasis on the individual over the group.
Collectivism – emphasis on the group over the individual. – members of collectivist communities consider their relationship to others when discussing matters and feel that a conversation requires ongoing maintenance by both communicators.
Face Management and Culture
Ting-Toomey (1988) observes, “individualistic cultures are concerned with the authenticity of their self-presentation (face) image, whereas collectivist cultures are concerned with the adaptability of their self-presentation (face) image.”
In individualistic cultures, face management, or the protection of one’s face, is overt in that it involves protecting one’s face, even if it comes to bargaining.
Managing Conflict Across Cultures
The individualistic-collectivistic cultural dimension influences the selection of conflict styles. These styles include:
1) Avoiding – staying away from disagreements
2) Obliging – Satisfying others’ needs
3) Compromising – Using give-and-take to achieve middle-of-the-road resolution
4) Dominating – Using influence or authority
Ting-Toomey believes that the decision to use one or more of these styles will depend on the cultural variability of the communicators.
Ting-Toomey and her research colleagues (1991) made some discoveries:
- Members of the U.S. culture use significantly more dominating styles of conflict management
- Taiwanese use significantly more integrating styles of conflict management
- Chinese and Taiwanese use significantly more obliging conflict styles
- The Chinese use higher degrees of avoidance than other cultural groups
- The Chinese use a higher degree of compromising than other cultures
Their research also showed that collectivist cultures (China, Korea, Taiwan) had a higher degree of other-face concern.
West and Turner – Chapter 12
Relational Dialectics Theory
This theory is based on the research of Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery.
Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) maintains that relational life is characterized by ongoing tensions between contradictory impulses.
Baxter and Montgomery formulate the most complete statement of theory in Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. William Rawlins (1992) and Sandra Petronio (2000) were influential in bringing the framework of dialectics to the study of communication in relationships.
Two other common approaches: Monologic Approach – contradictions are mututally exclusive, either/or and Dualistic Approach – contradictions are two separate entities.
Thinkers with the Dualistic Approach frame contradictions as both/and, two points of view that play off one another. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) observe, “Dialectical thinking is not directed toward a search for the ‘happy mediums’ of compromise and balance, but instead focuses on the messier, less logical, and more inconsistent unfolding practices of the moment.”
Assumptions of Relational Dialectics Theory
- Relationships are not linear
- Relational life is characterized by change
- Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life
- Communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational contradictions
Elements of Dialectics: Building the Tensions
4 Elements basic to the dialectical perspective:
1) Totality – acknowledges that people in relationships are interdependent
2) Contradiction – oppositions, the central feature of the dialectic approach
3) Motion – refers to the processual nature of relationships, and their change over time
4) Praxis – people make choices
Basic Relational Dialectics
3 Interactional dialectics (exist within the relationship):
1) Autonomy and Connection – Desire to be close and separate
2) Openness and Protection – Desire to tell our secrets and keep them hidden
3) Novelty and Predictability – Desire to have stability and change
Contextual Dialectics – the tension resulting from the place of the relationship within the culture:
1) Public and Private – tension between a private relationship and public life – family is usually valued more than friendship, because family relationships have societal sanctions that don’t exist in friendships.
2) Real and Ideal – the difference between idealized relationships and lived relationships – “Leave it to Beaver”vs. our own lives
Responses to Dialectics
4 strategies used to manage dialectic tensions:
1) Cyclic Alteration – choice of opposites at different times, e.g. relationship with siblings through life
2) Segmentation – isolating separate arenas for emphasizing each of the opposites
3) Selection – Making a choice between opposites
4) Integration – Synthesis of the opposites – Neutralizing involves finding a happy medium – Reframing involves transforming the dialectic so that it no longer seems to contain opposites – Disqualifying involves exempting certain issues from the general pattern, e.g. a family that is open except in discussion about sex.
Coping strategies may not always satisfy or work out as the interactants intended.
West and Turner - Chapter 11
Social Exchange Theory
Social Exchange Theory is based on the research of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley
Social Exchange Theory (SET) (a.k.a. Theory of Independence) is based on the notion that people think about relationships in economic terms and that they tally up the costs and compare them to the rewards that are offered.
Worth = Rewards – Costs
SET predicts that the worth of a relationship influences its outcome, or whether the relationship will continue.
Michael Roloff (1981) discusses 5 theories in Interpersonal Communication: The Social Exchange Approach, and observes that, “the guiding force of interpersonal relationships is the advancement of both parties,” and that when self-interest is recognized, it will enhance the relationship.
Assumptions of Social Exchange Theory:
Regarding Human Nature:
- Humans seek rewards and avoid punishment
- Humans are rational beings
- The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person
Thibaut and Kelley developed Game Theory, illustrated in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the outcome of either prisoner is dependent on both of their answers; thus, T and K named their theory the Theory of Interdependence.
Prisoner’s Dilemma:
Jones confesses and Smith confesses: They both receive a life sentence
Jones confesses and Smith denies: Jones goes free, Smith is executed
Jones denies and Smith confesses: Jones is executed, Smith is free
Both Deny: Both receive a short jail term
Regarding the Nature of Relationships:
- Relationships are interdependent – what one does will affect both
- Relational life is a process – time and change are involved
Evaluation of a Relationship: Why we Stay or Go
The Comparison Level (CL) is a standard for what a person thinks he or she should get in a relationship.
Why do people leave relationships in which the rewards outweigh the costs, and stay in relationships in which costs exceed rewards?
The Comparison Level for Alternatives (Clalt) – refers to, “the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone,” (Roloff, 1981) or how people evaluate a relationship based on what their alternatives to the relationship are.
Exchange Patterns: SET in Action
Thibaut and Kelley suggest that people are goal-directed in their interactions, and therefore engage in behavioral sequences, or actions designed to achieve their goals.
Interdependence brings up the concept of power, or the degree of dependence a person has on another for outcomes. If one partner depends more on the other for rewards, the other has more power.
2 types of Power:
1) Fate Control – the ability to affect a partner’s outcomes
2) Behavior Control – the ability to change another’s behavior
The Given Matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (the environment), e.g. family objection to a relationship, and internal factors (the specific skills each interactant possesses), e.g. a lack of ability to dance would make social interaction at a dance difficult.
People are not trapped by the Given Matrix! They can transform it into the Effective Matrix, the transformations one is able to make to the given matrix, e.g. learning a new skill.
The Dispositional Matrix represents the way two people believe rewards ought to be exchanged between them.
Thibaut and Kelley assert that if we know the kinds of dispositions a person has (dispositional matrix), and the nature of the situation in which they are operating (given matrix), then we’ll know how to predict transformations they will make (effective matrix) to ultimately impact social exchange.
Exchange Structures
Exchanges take several forms within the matrices.
Direct Exchange – two people reciprocate costs and rewards – Brad washes his Dad’s car, his Dad lets him use it on Saturday night.
Generalized Exchange – reciprocation involves the social network – friends and neighbors help a person move, though that person won’t help them when they move.
Productive Exchange – both partners incur costs and benefits simultaneously – working together on a project, sharing a grade.
