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! :)