Muted Group Theory

Muted Group Theory was developed by researcher Cheris Kramarae. According to Kramarae, women's thoughts and words are "devalued" in society, therefore women are what she calls a "muted group." The theory holds that, particularly in the language aspect of our culture, women's thoughts go unnoticed. Sometimes women can appear invisible in terms of public opinion. Like the Standpoint Theory, Muted Group Theory talks about how women have different perceptions of our world. Muted Group Theory takes it one step further and argues that women's thoughts and speech is controlled and censored by males in society. She presents men as the gatekeepers of communication. This is hard theory to think of an example for, especially because I don't necessarily agree with Kramarae. However, the best example I can come up with is how women in television are always portrayed as beautiful and gentle, and flowery almost. Also, women are always shown supporting a man instead of contributing her own opinions and ideals. While this happens on televison and in advertising, I do believe it occurs less frequently than Kramarae might suspect. I think women do have a significant voice in society, and that their voice is being heard more now than it ever has been before.

Standpoint Theory

The Standpoint Theory looks at the world through an extremely feminist point of view. The two founders and researchers of the theory are Sandra Harding and Julia T. Wood who argue that one of the best ways to understand how our society works is to research it from the viewpoint of groups who are less priveleged- primarily women. The theory argues that by taking the perspective of women, we gain a viewpoint of the world that shows a new perspective on mainstream issues. The best example I can think of for this is the research that has been done on rape and also domestic violence. If we were to follow the Standpoint Theory, our research would stem from women who were raped or involved in abuse situations, and even taking it further, conducted by female researchers. This would give us the female perspective that Wood and Harding argue is more objective.

Genderlect Styles

I love the Genderlect Styles Theory. I think it is because I see it happen so much in my personal life. The Genderlect Styles Theory describes male-female conversations as cross-cultural communication. This cross-cultural communication is defined as genderlects. The theory holds that neither one is superior, they are just different. The theory examines how women and men differ in communication styles when it comes to public speaking vs. private speaking, when telling a story, when listening, when asking questions, and when in conflict. The best example I can think of is interactions with my boyfriend. We are a lot alike, however, when it comes to communicating we can be on totally opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, when it is just Derek and I, I do most of the talking. However, when we're out for the night or at a party, it's usually Derek doing most of the talking. He's usually the center of attention. Also, when I'm telling a story, it's usually about something someone else did, while he's usually talking about something crazy he did. The last example I thought of is something we fight about a lot. Derek and I have totally different listening styles. When I listen to him, whether we're fighting or just talking, I always make eye contact and provide the feedback cues like "mhmm", or "right." Derek, on the other hand, doesn't do any of that. He insists that he really is listening, however because our genderlects are so different when it comes to listening, we usually end up fighting about it. This is definitely a theory I'd like to study more.

Face-Negotiation Theory

Face-Negotiation Theory is an interesting one. The theory aims to explain how different cultures respond to conflict. Specifically the culture examines the differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The main concept behind the thoery looks at how different cultures "negotiate face". Face refers to how we want others to see us, how we want them to perceive us. Therefore, the theory defines facework as the verbal or nonverbal messages that help us keep and/or gain face. I actually studied this theory in a buisness class I took a couple semesters ago. The example that popped into my head was a specific encounter I had while working on a project with someone from a different culture. The girl paired up with me to work on a project was from China. China is a very collectivistic culture in that they focus on group goals, and are very face-giving. The United States, however, is a very individualistic culture in that we are independent and focused on individual goals, and are usually more concerned with face restoration. We had just discussed this theory a little bit when studying how business owners interact with cross-cultural businesses and some of the problems that can arise. While working on the project, somehow there was a miscommunication between this girl and me, and we both thought the other person was working on the other part of the project, when in reality, we were working on the same part. When it came time to bring it all together, there was a little conflict because no one had completed the second part of the project. I demonstrated my individualistic tendencies by explaining myself, and restoring my face. She, on the other hand, started talking about how our group should have been more organized and how we needed this part of the project to be done, and since there was miscommunication she would go ahead and do the rest of the project. Looking back on it, it's interesting to see how differently we reacted to the situation because we were from such different cultures.

(By the way, we ended up splitting up the last part of the project, getting an 'A', and we are still friends to this day!)

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

The Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory primarily deals with interactions between strangers and some cultural group. The founder of the theory, William, Gudykunst, emphasizes that these interactions are not strictly limited to foreign cultures. This theory can be applied to any situation where one person involved is the "stranger." The theory discusses how during the intitial interactions between the stranger and the ingroup, both parties experience anxiety and aren't sure how they should act. This anxiety is intensified when it involves people from different cultures. The first thing that popped in my head when talking about this theory was when I spent a week in Nicaragua my senior year of highschool. The villiage we stayed in had only seen caucasian people three other times. When we first arrived in the villiage, the tension was very high between the villiagers and the team I was with. The interaction was somewhat awkward, not only because of the language barrier, but also because no one had any idea how to react. Our team was anxious because we didn't know what was acceptable behavior, or how to approach the villiagers, and I'm positive the people of the villiage felt the same anxiety. Also, like the theory suggests, because my interaction with the villiage was an interaction involving two parties from completely different cultures, our anxiety was intensified quite a bit.

Sprial of Silence

The Spiral of Silence Theory is probably my favorite theory out of all the ones we have covered this semester. The theory holds that there is increasing pressure on people to conceal their viewpoints when they believe they are in the minority. It also explains how media accelerates this spiral. The main idea of the theory is that we are driven to keep quiet by our fear of isolation. We are more willing to speak out when we think we are in the majority. Also, the theory says we are more willing to speak out if we are male, young adults, middle to upperclass, speaking to those with similar interests, if we have a high self esteem, or if existing law supports our opinions. I see this theory at work every year of school at the beginning of each semester. When the semester begins, no one knows each other and every one is a little concerned with what everyone else thinks of them. So, when the professor asks a question, if no one else is responding, someone who knows the right answer may still choose to stay quiet just because he or she thinks she is in the minority and is in fear of the isolation that may come with being wrong or some other factor.

Agenda Setting Theory

The Agenda Setting Theory is a theory I've never heard about as a theory before, however the main idea of it was discussed a lot when I was a student in the Journalism program. The theory holds that the media acts as the mediator between what is going on in the world and what we think is going on in the world. The media has the power to influence what we think about and how we think about it. The theory also explains that we tend to view something as important if the news is treating it with importance. The first example that popped in my head was the coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. Although it was tragic what happened to her, I would argue that her death did not demand the broad spectrum of coverage that it received. I would also argue that half of the people that saw it as important only did so because the news outlets put such an emphasis on it. This theory makes me wonder if our media outlets emphasized more global issues, such as what is going on with the AIDS epidemic in Africa, if our society would have different priorities.

Cultivation Theory

Cultivation Theory is the idea that television is our society's storyteller, and because of that, it has a strong presence in our culture. The theory, developed by Gerbner in 1976, says that people who consume a lot of TV are more likely to adopt a perception of reality that is communicated through the television. The theory also involved the "Cultural Indicators Project" which works to index TV violence. It also outlines different types of TV viewers such as light vs. heavy. What I thought was the most interesting part of the theory was that people who consume large amounts of TV are more prone to develop "mean world syndrome." They see their chances of being involved in some violent act as very likely and generally mistrust people. I think this theory is applicable to today's society in so many ways because our society is such a media consuming culture. The first example that popped into my head is one of my friends who watches a lot of Lifetime Television. Lifetime is a channel primarily geared towards women and airs a lot of movies dealing with abuse or harassment from men. Because she watches so much of this channel, she is convinced she will be part of some violent act, like getting mugged. Personally, I think she is paranoid. However, she's a great example of the theory at work in real life.

Dramatism

Dramatism is a very complex theory with a very interpretive perspective. The basic idea is that everything in life can be viewed as drama, complete with a plot, actors, setting etc. It also describes three lenses with which we can view life: identification, dramatistic pentad, and guild-redemption cycle.
The idea behind identification is that if there is no identification (the audience doesn't connect with the speaker) there will be no persuasion (you won't successfully persuade the audience.) The best example of this I could think of was when I was sitting in a lecture my freshman year at Malone College, and the professor was going on and on about Shakespeare and something I wasn't really interested in. Then he explained how as an undergrad he hated studying Shakespeare, especially the play we were looking at. He told a story about how someone explained it to him in a different way, and afterwards he fell in love with it. After he told that, I identified with how, yes, I hated studying it, but the second explanation definitely cast a different light on the play.
The idea behind the dramatistic pentad actually sets things up as five elements of drama: the act, the scene, the agent, the agency, and the purpose. It helps to discover the motivation behind the speaker. A good example of this is when in one of my politics classes we were told to look at speeches this way when studying them. For example, when President Bush was speaking, we had to set the speech up as who was talking, what was happening, where it was taking place, how it was happening, and why it was happening. Doing this made it easier to understand why something was happening.
We didn't spend any time studying the guilt-redemption cycle in class, but basically it says that the purpose behind all public speaking is to get rid of our sense of guilt that is part of human nature.

Cultural Approach to Organizations

The Cultural Approach to Organizations Theory says that culture is the organization, created by the members of that organization. The illustration given in class was that culture is like the water fish swim in; it is all around. An example of this theory is best illustrated by the restaurant that I work in. I work as a server and also a cook. Even though I serve and cook for the same restaurant, the cultures of both jobs are completely different. When I am cooking, I am part of the "line", and the cooks on the line are very laid back and we spend a lot of time joking around. If someone was to walk in the kitchen one night without any prior knowledge of our culture, they would probably be uncomfortable. It is the same concept with the servers at the restaurant. We have a certain flow that each of us understands. We know what each other means when we refer to the third room as "old smoky" or the back workstation as "the hole." Each culture is created and maintained by those of us in it.

Adaptive Structuration Theory

Adaptive Structuration Theory was the most difficult for me to understand. Basically, the theory is concerned with groups and the idea that the members of the group are responsible for how the group functions. The group members do this through "structuration" which is how people use thier rules (how to act) and resources (personal abilities/characteristics) when interacting. The reason the theory is called "adaptive" is because the primary researcher, Poole, says that group members are adapting their rules and resources to different settings in order to accomplish their goals. Basically, from what I understand, the theory presents the idea that every group member has an impact on how the group functions and what ultimately happens.

The best example that I can think of for this particular theory is when I was a camp counselor. I was specifically in charge of the high ropes course, and every weekend before the next group of campers arrived for the week, my ropes staff and I had to sit down and plan out what course we would take the campers on, alternatives if the weather was bad, and what exactly we wanted the campers to get out of each experience. When we first started off, our group interactions were awkward because people just wanted to let the supervisor take care of all the details, and he did for the first two weeks. However, when some of the staff no longer wanted to follow his plan, they began to speak up and provide new ideas for how the courses should run. This totally changed the group dynamic and by the end of the summer, everyone had an equal voice in how the ropes course would work. We all used our rules (specifically about how to respectfully address a supervisor) and resources (creative thinking abilities) to interact with each other and ultimately accomplish our group's goals.

Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making

The Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making Theory deals with how groups make good decisions. The theory holds that there are four funtions a group must achieve: analyzing a problem, setting goals, identifying alternatives, and evaluating positive and negative characteristics. These do not necessarily have to occur in order, but they all need to occur. A great example of this is when I was a music buyer for a small retail store. My associates and I were getting ready to release the new Switchfoot cd, and we needed a creative way to promote the album in the community as well as physically in the store. Our group sat down and I presented the problem, we set our goals (specifically that we wanted a concrete design plan as well as advertising plan), brainstormed (some crazy ideas :) ), and decided what would be good and bad about our ideas. Looking back on it, I don't think any of us knew there was an actual communication theory about what our group needed to do in order to make a good decision, however all four of these processes occurred, and in the end our store did really well with sales for that album!

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory deals with the feeling that people sometimes get when they find that they are doing something that they know they shouldn't, or when they have an opinion that totally contradicts their other opinions. It also talks about how this "dissonance" encourages us to change our behavior or our attitude so we don't feel that tension. The theory says that whether our behavior or our attitude changes depends on which one is least resistant to change. Also, the main theorist, Festinger, came up with three hypotheses for the theory. The first is about selective exposure, the idea that we avoid information that will increase our dissonance. We also hang out with people that will confirm our beliefs and listen only to opinions that support our attitudes. This reminded me of a good example. When I left Malone to come to Kent State, I started hanging out with people who were also going to be transferring once the year was over. I stopped going to activities that I had been involved with at Malone because I didn't want to hear good things that would suggest I was making the wrong decision by leaving. The second hypothesis says that when we do feel dissonance after making a decision or behaving in a certain way, we seek out reassurance from others. In my Malone example, this is when I sought out people who would tell me I was doing the right thing by going to Kent. I talked to my friends at home all the time just to hear them tell me things would be better once I left Malone. The third hypothesis deals with minimal justification, and the idea that changing behavior can change an attitude, and a minimum incentive is all that is needed to stimulate changing attitudes. I couldn't think of how this would fit into my Malone example, but the example the book gives reminded me of something I could tie this into. In class, we are allowed to create notecards for each chapter we read and when the test comes we are allowed to use them. This is a small incentive to read, but because the notecards can be so helpful on the test, it influences students to continue reading.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model deals with the idea of persuasion. Being a communications major, this is one of the theories that held my attention the longest, and inspired some additional research. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), talks about messages of persuasion and how there are two ways to achiveing persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. Both are concerned with elaboration: how much a person critically analyzes a message or argument. The central route is known for scrutiny and careful thought processes over what the message indicates and the consequences of it, while the peripheral route is known more for cues such as age, sex or credibility, and how they allow people to quickly decided what they think about a message. The ELM itself is a continuum of how much mental effort is put into understanding a message. In addition to what route is used by listeners, the model looks at the amount of motivation present, the ability to process the message, any biases held by the listeners, as well as how strong the message actually is.

An example of the ELM at work happens every week when I come to school. Three out of my four professors are young, and upbeat people. One professor I have, however, is older and lectures very monotonously. Based soley on peripheral cues, I tend to listen to the other three professors more than I do her. As far as the rest of the model is concerned, the theory makes sense because 1) I am more motivated to listen to the younger professors because I see more similarities between myself and them, 2) I am more capable of understanding them because they are more like me, and 3) I have a bias for people who are similar to me, so I would rather listen to them than her. Therefore, I would have more elaboration with messages from the three professors than I would the other one. This definitely helped solidify my understanding of this theory. :)

By the way... I really do like the other professor...she's not that bad! :)

Constructivism

The Constructivism Theory was one that I found myself talking about to my family at dinner. Constructivism's goal is to look at differences in how people communicate, especially how well they do it, in social situations. The theory says that some people are better at communicating in different ways than others, which seems like a pretty common sense statement. However, the theory takes a deeper look at how this works. The center of the theory focuses on what theorists call "constructs" which are, as the book described, stencils that people use to make sense of our thoughts; they allow us to classify characteristics of people and make sense of their personalities. The theory also says that people who are more "cognitively complex", as in those people who have more constructs at their disposal to sort through their perceptions, will have a communication advantage over those who don't.

After I studied this theory, I told my parents a little bit about it at dinner, and they told me that it reminded them of me. When I asked them how, they said that I have always described people by their personality traits and characteristics and most of the time leave out any physical description at all. They also said that because I seem to have such a good understanding of so many different characteristics, I can always tailor how I talk to people, and usually convince them to do what I'm asking, or agree with what I am saying. The book gives a specific example of how a girl would respond to a boss in a sexual harassment situation, and it reminded me of something I encountered once at work. There is a guy I work with who wanted to take one of the other girls at work out on a date. He is one of the supervisors in the kitchen. She didn't want to offend him, so she followed much of the same plan layed out in the book: she figured out what she wanted out of the situation, how she would go about doing it, and keeping the message focused on the people involved, she successfully turned him down. I think situations like this occur everyday and this theory is probably more applicable and common than some might think.

Relational Dialectics

The Relational Dialectics Theory that we looked at is focused on the assumption that there are 3 "tensions" within relationships that people manage. The theory also says that there is no way to get rid of these tensions, we simply must learn to manage them. The three tensions are integration-seperation, stability-change, and expression-nonexpression. Also, the theory says that each tension occurs internally and externally. I loved this theory because I am in the early stages of a relationship with my boyfriend and I can definitely see some of these tensions present in our relationship.

For example, with the idea of integration-seperation tension, Derek (my boyfriend) and I spend a lot of time together. We see each other everyday, sometimes several times a day. I see this working in our relationship when I want Derek to know everything, but also when I have certain things that I would rather him not know. Also, when we are at work, including him in afterwork activities sometimes becomes a struggle for me, and also for him because we do want certain aspects of our lives to be secluded for just ourselves. Also, I think the concept of stability-change is incredibly accurate, especially in romantic relationships. I want our relationship to be a for sure thing, something I know I can always count on. I want it to be predictable in a way. However, along with that, in a relationship you always want a little excitement, and there is tension between how much of the relationship should be predictable and how much should be left to the unknown. The last tension has definitely made an impact on Derek and I's relationship. It deals with expression-nonexpression. Derek is a very expressive person and won't hesistate to tell me what he is feeling. However, I am the opposite and I always struggle with whether or not I should reveal my feelings to him.

This theory is definitely applicable, and definitely has the real life examples to back up the research.

Social Information Processing Theory

This theory is my favorite theory that we've looked at so far. Social Information Processing Theory, otherwise known as SIP, looks at creating good relationships with others over the internet, and how they have the potential to be as strong as relationships formed face to face, it just takes a little longer. The whole "online relationship" phenomenon that is sweeping through our country makes this theory even more interesting to study. I do believe that this theory is very accurate in that it is possible to create a solid, healthy relationship on the internet. It is also accurate in saying that it takes longer than a face to face relationship to fully develop. A great example of this theory in action, for me, happened this summer. I met a guy online, through facebook, and we began to talk a lot through messages. Soon enough, we were talking over instant messenger, then the phone, and we eventually went to a movie together. The whole process, had it happened face to face, probably would've only taken a few days to get underway. However, because we initiated the relationship online, it took us 4 months before we actually met, mostly because it was weird for both of us that we were meeting online. My relationship with him was a lot like relationships I had with other guys, it just started on the internet. I definitely think the SIP theory is accurate and is probably proved more than most professionals realize. One thing that also stuck out to me was when we were discussing the critique of this theory in class, and one of the weaknesses mentioned was that CMC relationships CAN in fact form quickly. I also agree with this. Although it took 4 months for me to physically meet with this guy, our relationship in terms of the depth of things we talked about happened a lot faster than with my current boyfriend who I met face to face initially. In fact, I would say I was closer to the guy I met online than I was with a lot of my friends simply because of our deep conversations. Overall, I think this is a great theory, and is definitely going to come into the spotlight more now that there is a such a fetish with facebook and myspace and other online forums.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

This particular theory is the one I have struggled with the most so far. Basically, the Uncertainty Reduction Theory says we want to be able to predict and explain what is going to happen when we initially encounter someone. We think about what we should do as well as what is going on in the other person's mind. There are eight axioms surrounding the theory, and all of them are easily applied to a real life situation. The one axiom that stuck out in my mind the most was the sixth one because I have encountered it so much this semester. I am a brand new Comm. Studies major, and I'm starting out as a senior. When the semester began, I was positive I was the only senior to switch my major this late in the game and I was really uncertain about the people I was going to have class with. The sixth axiom says that as similarities increase, our uncertainty decreases. On my first day of class, I met 3 other students that were seniors just now switching into Communication Studies. I immediately felt more confident and at ease knowing that there were other people in the same boat that I am.

Social Penetration Theory

Even though I wasn't in class when we discussed the Social Penetration Theory, when I started to study it and break it down, it made sense pretty quickly. The Social Penetration Theory explains how we develop "closeness" in our relationships, whether they are romantic or just friendships. The theory says that self-disclosure is the primary way to develop close relationships. I think this theory holds true because I have also learned that self-disclosure will increase how close you are with someone in my Interpersonal Communication course. Also, it reminds me of my freshman year at Malone College. When I got to Malone, I didn't know anyone. However, I had joined something called "The Cluster" which was a group of students who all had the same classes and met regularly outside of class for different activities. At first, those of us in The Cluster weren't close at all. However, the more we shared with each other inside and outside the classroom, the more we "self-disclosed", the closer we became. When I told the girls in my cluster group about how much I was struggling with my roommate, they were able to help me with some issues. Some of those girls are my best friends today. I definitely think the Social Penetration Theory holds true.

Expectancy Violations Theory

The Expectancy Violations Theory that we studied in class last week was something I had never independently thought about, but something that applies to my life more than I realize. Basically, the theory concerns expectations people have about how others are going to communicate with you, be it proxemics, eye contact, touch or an expression on someone's face. Sometimes, expectations you have of how someone will communicate are violated, and the theory aims to point out the problems that can arise when these expectations are violated. The first situation that popped in my head when studying this theory actually happened the day after we discussed the theory in class. My boyfriend took me to his best friends house for lunch, and his friend's mom was there. When she greeted me, she pulled me in close and hugged me and then proceeded to kiss me on the cheek three times. I had expected maybe a handshake or a pat on the back, and when my expectations were violated, I was almost immediately uncomfortable.

However, the second part of the theory that we discussed was the Communicator Reward Valence. This is how we analyze the situation: the positive or negative attributes of the person and that person's potential to reward or punish you. In the case of my friend's mom, her opinion of me matters to her son, so the fact that she seemed to like me was potentially rewarding. Also, I knew she meant well, and she seemed like a nice person, so after my initial discomfort, I saw her greeting as a positive attribute and my discomfort went away. Had I interpreted it differently, I might have declined hanging out at my friend's house in the future because of my discomfort.

I'm kindof looking forward to seeing how the other theories apply!