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.